IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ROGER WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

No. 4:22-cv-942-DPM

USA and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEFENDANTS

ORDER Williams’s motion for some relief from the Court’s Order setting aside the jury’s verdict and from its Amended Judgment is denied. First, the Court stands by its post-trial decision that — given Williams’s testimony about what he knew, did, and didn’t do—the United States was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. E.g., Colosimo v. United States,

(8th Cir. 2011). Second, the Court continues to believe that the jury instructions as a whole, and the willfulness instruction in particular, correctly stated the governing law. E.g., Oppliger v. United States,

(8th Cir. 2011). As the parties hashed out in limine, assurances are relevant to willfulness — especially on recklessness. Doc. 39 at 3. Neither Williams nor the United States objected to the willfulness instruction. Indeed, Williams sought an instruction along these lines because the assurances were the core of his defense. The Court sees no error, plain or otherwise; but if error there was, Williams invited it. Starks v.

Rent-A-Center,

(8th Cir. 1995). Third, the jury was concerned about the practical effect of its verdicts. Again, the parties and the Court agreed on an accurate answer to the jury’s question. Fourth, no miscarriage of justice occurred. Niemiec v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,

(8th Cir. 2006). Three reconcilable truths are supported by the record in this case: Williams was a responsible person; he was assured by his bosses that the taxes would be paid over; and his failure to do so while paying other obligations was nonetheless willful as a matter of law under the strict precedent. Motion for new trial or other relief, Doc. 75, denied. So Ordered. pasta fe _ D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 5 nevemln 2025

Te