What is the test for determining whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for failure to file an income tax return?

A district court's assumption of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. United States v. Peralta, 941 F.2d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1484 (1992).

Even though service of the summons upon Heun may have been defective, the district court had personal jurisdiction over him because he appeared before the court. In a criminal case "a court has exclusive personal jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how that appearance was effected." United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n. 8 (9th Cir.1980).

3. Indictment

The sufficiency of an indictment is examined de novo. United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1518 (9th Cir.1992).

The indictment against Heun is sufficient. The indictment provides sufficient notice of the charges against Heun and is drawn with sufficient specificity to foreclose further prosecution upon the same facts. See United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1542 (9th Cir.1991).

The indictment is sufficient even though it cited to the Internal Revenue Code sections prescribing penalties for failure to file income tax returns rather than to the section that requires a tax return to be filed. The government is not required to cite 26 U.S.C. 6012 in an indictment to give the defendant notice of the charges filed against him. United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669 (9th Cir.1992).