
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Phil Loren MYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11080
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 9, 2007.
    
      Phillip C. Umphres, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Leonard Richards, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Phil Loren Myers (Myers) appeals his convictions on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns. Myers does not dispute that he failed to file income tax returns for 2001 and 2002, when he realized substantial income from a currency trading venture, but he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his failure to file was willful. Myers contends that he sincerely believed, based on his own research, that he was not required to file.

Because the issue was preserved, we review Myers’s insufficiency argument to determine “whether, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence establishes the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir.2003). “ ‘[I]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.’ ” United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 576 (5th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

The evidence showed that Myers filed income tax returns and paid taxes until he lost a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over a tax shelter. Although Myers testified that he believed that the income tax system was voluntary and that he was not required to file, he knew from previous experience that income derived from currency trading was taxable, and he put assets in his wife’s name and took other actions designed to protect his property from the IRS. Myers also threatened to take action against the IRS if it continued collection efforts. The above evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Myers willfully failed to file tax returns. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991); United States v. Shivers, 788 F.2d 1046, 1048-49 (5th Cir.1986).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

466 253 FEDERAL APPENDIX UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 35) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Group 2 — Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Group 3 — Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Docket Date of Citation of Title Number Denial Panel Decision Group 1 Decorte v. Jordan..................... 05-31042 09/19/2007 E.D.La., 497 F.3d 433

Title Docket Date of Citation of Number Denial Panel Decision UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 35) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Docket Date of Citation of Title Number Denial Panel Decision Group 1 U.S. v. Willingham ............ ....... 06-11160 10/01/2007 N.D.Tex., 497 F.3d 541 Group 2— Group 3— 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     