Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 4, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-1024 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00028-RM-1) CRAIG R. WALCOTT, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Craig Walcott, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the district court’s denial of
his petition for a writ of coram nobis challenging his conviction for tax evasion and
his motion to alter or amend the order denying that petition. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Because Mr. Walcott proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his arguments, 1
but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 2
I
In 2018, Mr. Walcott was indicted for attempting to evade income tax, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and failing to file an individual income tax return, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. After unsuccessfully challenging the district court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce a federal tax on an individual’s income, he
entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to evade
income tax. The district court sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. Mr. Walcott did not appeal, but later he filed an
unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
In 2024, after he had served his terms of imprisonment and supervised release,
Mr. Walcott again moved to vacate the judgment for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. He asserted the judgment was void because to establish jurisdiction, the
United States had to identify a specific taxing power authorized by the Constitution
and the specific tax the charges were intended to enforce. He stated the record lacked
a proper declaration of the foundation for the criminal charges against him, which he
characterized as a “plain fatal error.” R. vol. I at 254 (bold text and italics omitted).
Under these circumstances, Mr. Walcott insisted, the court had to set aside his plea
agreement and void the judgment.
The district court denied the motion in a minute order, stating that “[t]he
purported grounds for the motion are tax protestor characterizations of the law and
Constitution that are frivolous.” Id. at 264. Noting Mr. Walcott had filed multiple
2 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 3
challenges to the court’s jurisdiction during the proceedings against him, it adopted
its previous rulings by reference and concluded, “This Court’s jurisdiction is and was
proper, legal and constitutional.” Id.
Mr. Walcott then filed a motion to alter or amend 2 citing Moore v. United
States, which stated income taxes are indirect taxes authorized by Article I, § 8 of the
United States Constitution. 602 U.S. 572, 582-83 (2024). He asserted the United
States based its prosecution of him on the position that the federal income tax is a
non-apportioned direct tax under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment as stated
in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he sixteenth
amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens
throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.”), and the district court
erroneously followed Collins. Arguing that Moore abrogated Collins, he asserted the
district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute him for tax evasion
because “the court does not possess the constitutional authority required to enforce a
‘non-apportioned direct tax on income under authority of the 16th Amendment’.”
R. vol. I at 268 (bolding and italics omitted).
The district court granted the motion to alter and amend but only to further
explain its decision to deny Mr. Walcott’s motion for relief from his conviction. It
stated it had construed the earlier motion as a petition for a writ of coram nobis, and
2 The motion cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), but because it was titled as a motion to alter or amend that was filed twenty-eight days after the order denying the motion for relief from Mr. Walcott’s conviction, we construe it as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 3 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 4
“construed as a motion for coram nobis relief, the collateral challenge has been
procedurally defaulted as it was not raised on direct appeal” or in Mr. Walcott’s
§ 2255 motion. Id. at 304. In addition, it held, “coram nobis is an extraordinary
remedy reserved for extraordinary cases. This is not such a case.” Id. The district
court observed Mr. Walcott had not cited Moore in his earlier motion, but “[n]othing
in Moore invalidates the Internal Revenue Code generally, the provisions applicable
to Walcott in the instant case, or the statute of conviction in the instant case.” Id.
at 305.
II
In considering the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis, “we review
the district court’s factual findings for clear error, its rulings on questions of law
de novo, and its ultimate decision to deny the coram nobis writ for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2022);
see also United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 2000) (“On appeal,
we review de novo the question of whether a district judge applied the proper legal
standard, but review the judge’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of
discretion.”); Blanton v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 4, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-1024 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00028-RM-1) CRAIG R. WALCOTT, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Craig Walcott, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the district court’s denial of
his petition for a writ of coram nobis challenging his conviction for tax evasion and
his motion to alter or amend the order denying that petition. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Because Mr. Walcott proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his arguments, 1
but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 2
I
In 2018, Mr. Walcott was indicted for attempting to evade income tax, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and failing to file an individual income tax return, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. After unsuccessfully challenging the district court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce a federal tax on an individual’s income, he
entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to evade
income tax. The district court sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. Mr. Walcott did not appeal, but later he filed an
unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
In 2024, after he had served his terms of imprisonment and supervised release,
Mr. Walcott again moved to vacate the judgment for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. He asserted the judgment was void because to establish jurisdiction, the
United States had to identify a specific taxing power authorized by the Constitution
and the specific tax the charges were intended to enforce. He stated the record lacked
a proper declaration of the foundation for the criminal charges against him, which he
characterized as a “plain fatal error.” R. vol. I at 254 (bold text and italics omitted).
Under these circumstances, Mr. Walcott insisted, the court had to set aside his plea
agreement and void the judgment.
The district court denied the motion in a minute order, stating that “[t]he
purported grounds for the motion are tax protestor characterizations of the law and
Constitution that are frivolous.” Id. at 264. Noting Mr. Walcott had filed multiple
2 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 3
challenges to the court’s jurisdiction during the proceedings against him, it adopted
its previous rulings by reference and concluded, “This Court’s jurisdiction is and was
proper, legal and constitutional.” Id.
Mr. Walcott then filed a motion to alter or amend 2 citing Moore v. United
States, which stated income taxes are indirect taxes authorized by Article I, § 8 of the
United States Constitution. 602 U.S. 572, 582-83 (2024). He asserted the United
States based its prosecution of him on the position that the federal income tax is a
non-apportioned direct tax under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment as stated
in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he sixteenth
amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens
throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.”), and the district court
erroneously followed Collins. Arguing that Moore abrogated Collins, he asserted the
district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute him for tax evasion
because “the court does not possess the constitutional authority required to enforce a
‘non-apportioned direct tax on income under authority of the 16th Amendment’.”
R. vol. I at 268 (bolding and italics omitted).
The district court granted the motion to alter and amend but only to further
explain its decision to deny Mr. Walcott’s motion for relief from his conviction. It
stated it had construed the earlier motion as a petition for a writ of coram nobis, and
2 The motion cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), but because it was titled as a motion to alter or amend that was filed twenty-eight days after the order denying the motion for relief from Mr. Walcott’s conviction, we construe it as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 3 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 4
“construed as a motion for coram nobis relief, the collateral challenge has been
procedurally defaulted as it was not raised on direct appeal” or in Mr. Walcott’s
§ 2255 motion. Id. at 304. In addition, it held, “coram nobis is an extraordinary
remedy reserved for extraordinary cases. This is not such a case.” Id. The district
court observed Mr. Walcott had not cited Moore in his earlier motion, but “[n]othing
in Moore invalidates the Internal Revenue Code generally, the provisions applicable
to Walcott in the instant case, or the statute of conviction in the instant case.” Id.
at 305.
II
In considering the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis, “we review
the district court’s factual findings for clear error, its rulings on questions of law
de novo, and its ultimate decision to deny the coram nobis writ for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2022);
see also United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 2000) (“On appeal,
we review de novo the question of whether a district judge applied the proper legal
standard, but review the judge’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of
discretion.”); Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir. 1996) (“We review
de novo the district court’s determination of legal issues in its denial of [the] petition
for a writ of error coram nobis. However, we must uphold the district court’s
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted)). We review the
denial of a motion to alter or amend for abuse of discretion. See Burke v. Regalado,
935 F.3d 960, 1044 (10th Cir. 2019).
4 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 5
Mr. Walcott does not contest the district court’s treatment of his motion to
vacate as a petition for a writ of coram nobis. Although abolished in civil actions,
the writ of coram nobis “retains its vitality in criminal proceedings,” Klein v. United
States, 880 F.2d 250, 253 (10th Cir. 1989), “provid[ing] a way to collaterally attack a
criminal conviction for a person who is no longer ‘in custody’ and therefore cannot
seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241,” United States v. Miles,
923 F.3d 798, 802 (10th Cir. 2019) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Because the writ continues litigation after final judgment and exhaustion of other
remedies, relief should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy only under
circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.” Klein, 880 F.2d at 253
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The writ is available only to correct errors that
result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
But “[a]bsent those traditional grounds that have excused successive or
abusive habeas petitions, a petition for coram nobis must be rejected if the claim was
raised or could have been raised on direct appeal, through a § 2255 motion, or in any
other prior collateral attack on the conviction or sentence.” Miles, 923 F.3d at 804.
Applying this rule, the district court held Mr. Walcott procedurally defaulted his
arguments by failing to raise them on direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion. The
record shows Mr. Walcott did not file a direct appeal. Nor did he include his
jurisdictional arguments in his § 2255 motion. He fails to explain why he could not
have raised his arguments in those proceedings. Accordingly, he has not shown the
district court erred in concluding his arguments were procedurally defaulted.
5 Appellate Case: 25-1024 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2025 Page: 6
In any event, we discern no error in the district court’s conclusion that
Mr. Walcott’s subject-matter jurisdiction challenge lacked merit. Congress granted
the district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over federal criminal offenses.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Hopson, 150 F.4th 1290, 1298 (10th Cir.
2025). Because Mr. Walcott was indicted with federal criminal offenses, namely,
violations of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7203, the district court had subject-matter
jurisdiction. Moore, a civil case, upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory
Repatriation Tax. See 602 U.S. at 578. It does not undermine the district court’s
exercise of jurisdiction over this prosecution. See United States v. Cromar,
No. 25-4002, 2025 WL 2502143, at *2-3 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025) (unpublished)
(rejecting Moore-based attack on the district court’s jurisdiction in direct appeal of
tax-related criminal convictions).
III
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Entered for the Court
Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge