Opinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1988.
D.Or.
AFFIRMED.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Rudie Pletz appeals his conviction for assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon, impeding the federal officer, and attempting to rescue seized property in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. section 111 and Title 26, U.S.C. sections 7212(a) and 7212(b). Pletz contends that the government withheld material exculpatory evidence during his trial, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Pletz, and that the I.R.S. agents and a tow-truck driver who assisted the agents in seizing Pletz's truck were not "federal agents" within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. section 111. We affirm.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had an assessment against Pletz for delinquent taxes and obtained a levy form allowing seizure of Pletz's assets to satisfy the account. When IRS agents seized Pletz's truck in order to satisfy the outstanding tax deficiency, Pletz drove his car into the tow-truck which was carrying away his truck. Pletz contends that this was an accident; the jury evidently found that it was deliberate.
Pletz argues that the government concealed exculpatory evidence which would, if disclosed, have changed the outcome of the trial. He nowhere alleges what this evidence is, however. Pletz appears to be alleging that the government witnesses lied on the stand when testifying about the circumstances of the car crash, but he does not present any particular evidence which the prosecution was obliged to disclose. As defendant points out, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54 (1972), requires that evidence relevant to the credibility of a government witness be disclosed if it may be determinative of guilt or innocence. In the present case, however, defendant has not alleged that such evidence exists.
Second, the district court clearly had jurisdiction over Pletz. Title 18, U.S.C. section 3231 vests in the district court original jurisdiction over "all offenses against the laws of the United States." Sections 7201 through 7210 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code were enacted pursuant to the power granted by Congress by Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Title 26 of the U.S. Code defines laws of the United States, suits for violations of which clearly fall within federal district court jurisdiction under section 3231. United States v. Przybyla, 737 F.2d 828, 829 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 (1985).
Last, the IRS agents and the tow truck driver were "federal agents" under Title 18, U.S.C. section 111. The agents were acting in performance of their official duties when they seized Pletz's truck, and the two truck driver was assisting the agents in the execution of those duties. See 18 U.S.C. sections 111, 1114.
In light of the foregoing discussion, we AFFIRM.