proscribed at 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7203. Appellant’s Br. at 10; see 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7203, 7206 (2012). He claims that this court has “not had to set boundaries between [tax] evasion and [tax] obstruction” and asks that we do so now. Appellant’s Br. at 12. The government rejects Soren-sen’s proposition. Because Congress enacted separate tax-crime statutes, the government has the “plenary power to choose which charge it will bring.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. The Supreme Court “has long recognized that when an act violates more than one criminal statute, the Government may proseeute[ ] under either....” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123-24, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979); see also Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 859, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S.
recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief recognizing the governments broad discretion to conduct criminal prosecutions including its power to select the charges to be brought in a particular case recognizing the broad discretion of prosecutors in making decisions about whom to prosecute and what charges to bring recognizing broad equitable power of probate court to act in best interests of persons in its jurisdiction recognizing broad district court discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket