The details are outlined in four previous appeals. United States v. Tucker, 363 F. App'x 643 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Tucker, 332 F. App'x 484 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Tucker, 298 F. App'x 794 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Tucker, 253 F. App'x 718 (10th Cir. 2007). Most recently, Mr. Tucker filed on June 28, 2010, a "Motion for Return of Improperly Seized Funds," R. Vol.

R., Vol. 1, Doc. 206 at 2. On appeal, we upheld the district court's determination. United States v. Tucker, 332 Fed.Appx. 484, 486 (10th Cir. 2009). Regarding the incorrect title and section numbers, the district court ruled that the judgment order should be amended to reflect the proper title and section numbers of the statutes to which Tucker pleaded guilty.

Yet liberal construction of pro se pleadings, if carried over to all pro se filings, runs contrary to the underlying principles of our adversary system. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 385-86 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (noting "the exceptional nature of recharacterization within an adversarial system," and arguing that the reasons for liberal construction of pro se pleadings do not extend to other types of pro se filings); see United States v. Tucker, 332 F. App'x 484, 486 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing the cautionary instruction of the Castro concurrence). Construing the response as an objection appears especially inappropriate in light of Mr. Burt's evident intentions.

The background facts that pertain to this case have been set forth in detail in previous opinions of both this court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and will not be fully replicated here. See Tucker v. United States, 2008 WL 732724 (D. Utah March 17, 2008); see also United States v. Tucker, 363 Fed.Appx. 643 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Tucker, 332 Fed.Appx. 484 (19th Cir. 2009); United States v. Tucker, 298 Fed.Appx. 794 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Tucker, 253 Fed.Appx. 718 (10th Cir. 2007). For the purpose of the present motion it is important to restate the following: