United States of America v. Rodney Lavonne Burton

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY LAVONNE BURTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-5082
(D.C. No. 4:19-CR-00105-GKF-1)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Appellant-Defendant Rodney Lavonne Burton appeals his one-count
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Burton argues that because he is “a Free Sovereign
Moor,” he is “eternally in the Jurisdiction of [his] Ancient Moabite Forebeares” and
the case against him should accordingly be dismissed. Aplt. Br. at 2–3. When Burton
raised this issue before the district court, the district court construed Burton’s
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 6, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 6 --

2
arguments as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion.
ROA, Vol. 1 at 38–40. Burton was found guilty after a jury trial. He has timely
appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm Burton’s
conviction.
I
This case began in May 2019, when Tulsa Police officers responded to a report
of a man pointing a firearm at passing cars. ROA, Vol. III at 25. Officers arrived at
the scene and found Burton, who “continually repeated a statement regarding his
Moorish beliefs during which he reported that his name was Rodney Burton Bey.” Id.
Burton was carrying a bag, and officers could see the stock of a revolver protruding
from the bag. Id. After arresting Burton, officers searched the bag and recovered a
Colt .357 magnum revolver loaded with six rounds of ammunition. Id. At the time of
his arrest, Burton had previous convictions for marijuana possession and being a
felon in possession of a firearm. ROA, Vol. II at 141–42.
A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment, charging Burton with
being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. ROA, Vol. I at 13–14.
Before Burton’s trial, the district court ordered a competency hearing and a
psychiatric evaluation. Id. at 21–22. Burton was found competent to stand trial. ROA,
Vol. II at 5. Burton proceeded pro se after refusing appointment of counsel. However,
a federal public defender served as his stand-by counsel throughout trial. ROA, Vol. I
at 16. Burton filed several affidavits with the district court, arguing in part that he
was not a citizen of the United States and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 6 --

3
over him. Burton also alleged that he was not the same person named in the
indictment and was instead a third-party intervenor. The district court construed these
affidavits as motions to dismiss, to transfer for lack of venue, and to compel
production of information. The court denied the motions. Id. at 38–41. Burton’s case
proceeded to trial, and a jury subsequently found him guilty. Id. at 129. Burton was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months, and a 3-year term of supervised
release. Id. at 130. After sentencing, Burton filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the district court denied. After filing this appeal, we granted Burton’s motion seeking
permission to appear pro se and to allow his public defender to withdraw.
II
In his appeal, Burton seeks dismissal of this case and renews several
arguments that he made before the district court, namely that he is a “Free
Sovereign” who is “eternally in the Jurisdiction of [his] Ancient Moabite
Forebeares.” Aplt. Br. at 2–4. Burton further asserts that he is not the Rodney Burton
referenced in the indictment, and that Rodney Burton is a “paper construct.” Id. at 4.
Burton also asserts that the district court erred because “it used the past of the paper
construct[’]s prior convictions.” Id. Like the district court, we construe these
arguments as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional
grounds under a de novo standard of review. United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216,
1224 (10th Cir. 2013).
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 6 --

4
We first address Burton’s arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction
over him because he is a Moor American national. Burton was charged with
violating federal criminal law while in the United States. The district court’s criminal
jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which provides that federal “district courts
of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the
States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Further, the “[l]aws of
the United States apply to all persons within its borders.” United States v. James, 328
F.3d 953, 954 (7th Cir. 2003). We have held that 18 U.S.C. § 3231 is “the beginning
and the end of the jurisdictional inquiry” in cases involving violations of federal
criminal law. United States v. Tony, 637 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations
omitted).
Burton has offered no evidence to support his assertions that he is not an
American citizen, and in other cases we have rejected the argument that a defendant’s
alleged status as a sovereign state citizen entitles him to immunity from federal law.
See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (dismissing
defendant’s arguments that federal taxes did not apply because defendants were “free
born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law ‘de jure’ citizens
of a state, etc.” as “lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous”); see also United
States v. Palmer, 699 Fed. App’x 836, 838 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“As for
[defendant’s] sovereign state citizen argument, reasonable jurists could also not
disagree that the claim is plainly frivolous.”). Accordingly, we reject Burton’s
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 6 --

5
argument that his Moor nationality removed him from the criminal jurisdiction of the
district court.1
Burton also argues that the district court erred in considering “the past of the
paper construct[’]s prior convictions.” Aplt. Br. at 4. Burton renews his claim that he
is “not the paper construct capital letter all capital letter Rodney L Burton” named in
the indictment. Id. Burton has presented no evidence to support the claim that he is
not the person named in the indictment. After surveying documents in the trial
record, the district court was “satisfied . . . Burton is the person named in the Second
Superseding Indictment.” ROA, Vol. I at 38. The pre-sentence investigation report
also provided various identifying information confirming Burton’s identity. ROA,
Vol. III at 21–23 (including Burton’s photograph, date of birth, social security
number, and identifying tattoos). During the trial, a probation officer who was
familiar with Burton from his prior convictions identified Burton as the same person
who had previously been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. ROA,
Vol. II at 141–42. Thus, there was ample evidence to conclude that Burton is the
same person named in the indictment, and, aside from his own statements, he has
presented no evidence to the contrary.
1 Burton also mentions in his opening brief the “Peace and Friendship Treaty”
between Morocco and the United States, but he does not explain how that treaty
affects the district court’s criminal jurisdiction in this case. Aplt. Br. at 3. As the
government notes, “[n]othing in this treaty supports . . . Burton’s position that . . . he
is exempt from criminal prosecution in the United States.” Aple. Br. at 8. We
therefore reject Burton’s argument that the treaty provides him with immunity from
criminal prosecution in the United States.
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 5

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Because there was ample evidence to conclude that Burton was the same
person who had been previously convicted of various felonies, the district court also
did not err in permitting the jury to consider Burton’s prior convictions. During
Burton’s trial, the government presented evidence that Burton had previously been
found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 141–42 (presenting
testimony from probation officer Michael Woolridge, confirming that Burton had
previously been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm). The
government also introduced evidence that Burton “received a sentence of two years
for possession of marijuana” in April 2002, and that that was his second marijuana
offense. ROA, Vol. II at 154. As discussed above, Burton’s assertions that the
defendant in those cases was a “paper construct” is insufficient justification for the
court to exclude evidence of these past convictions. Therefore, the district court did
not err in considering proof of these past convictions in determining his criminal
history, or in allowing the jury to consider them in determining Burton’s guilt.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Burton’s conviction.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-5082 Document: 010110503962 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 6

-- 6 of 6 --