United States v. Phillips
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Perkins v. United States (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2022)
- Young v. State of Illinois (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2021)
- People v. Miller CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
- Saint Paris v. Galluzzo (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
- Com. v. Sutton, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)
- United States v. Kashamu (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2014)
- United States v. Benabe (7th Cir. 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Anthony Phillips suggests several unpersuasive reasons why we should vacate his conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957. He insists, for instance, that district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over all crimes not committed on federal property. But district courts in fact have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir. 2005). Phillips also contends that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he is “a natural man, a Sovereign state born citizen, a private human being.” This argument is frivolous: a district court has personal jurisdiction over any defendant brought before it on a federal indictment charging a violation of federal law. See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408 (7th Cir. 2005) (explaining that defendant’s presence in the territory of the United States supplies personal jurisdiction). His remaining claims are too frivolous to warrant further discussion.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.