United States v. De Tomaso
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ernest Patrick De Tomaso appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial for one count of forcible rescue of seized property in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212 (b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), De Tomaso’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and De Tomaso has filed a supplemental brief.
Counsel has identified several potential issues and correctly determined that they are without merit. The trial court properly denied De Tomaso’s motion to dismiss because 26 U.S.C. § 7212 (b), on its face, allows for the prosecution of individuals who forcibly rescue property seized by the IRS under title 26, and De Tomaso conceded that Revenue Officer Bettencourt was properly authorized under the Internal Revenue Code to conduct the seizure.
The district court also did not err in allowing evidence of other related bad acts with a proper limiting instruction. See United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Winters, 729 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1984) (upholding introduction of Rule 404(b) evidence with a proper limiting instruction).