United States v. Emile M. Stolle II

9 F.3d 1555 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emile M. STOLLE II, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50712. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 20, 1993. * Decided Oct. 27, 1993. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Emile M. Stolle II, appeals pro se his conviction following jury trial for three counts of tax evasion in violation 26 U.S.C. § 7201 . Although his claims are far from clear, Stolle apparently contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because the government failed to prove that he had a duty to comply with the law and because the government failed to prove each element of the offense of conviction. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 3 In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we "review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any…