William Black v. US
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999945843-2], granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999945806-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00299-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: appellants. [16-2129]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM H. BLACK; LINDA WILSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00299-CMC)
Submitted: February 22, 2017
Decided: April 11, 2017
Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Black; Linda Wilson, Appellants Pro Se. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
William H. Black and Linda Wilson appeal from the district court’s order denying
their motion to quash writs of execution that were entered on restitution orders made
under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A to 3664 (2012)
(MVRA). We affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to quash for abuse of discretion,
and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Under Seal, 737 F.3d 330, 332-33
(4th Cir. 2013). An order of restitution entered under the MVRA is treated as “a liability
for a tax assessed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c)
Appellants claim that the writs of execution are unenforceable because lien notices
were not refiled within ten years and thirty days of entry of the restitution orders, as
required under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(g) (2012). However, Congress made clear that “[t]he
failure to refile [a] tax lien at the appropriate time [does] not . . . affect the validity of the
lien itself,” but rather potentially the priority of the lienholder. Griswold v. United States,
59 F.3d 1571, 1579 n.17 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing S. Rep. No. 1708, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.
12 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3722, 3733).
Thus, this contention is
meritless. Contrary to Appellants’ other argument, the limitations period applicable to
MVRA restitution orders is twenty years, not ten. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c) (2012). The
MVRA restitution orders against Black and Wilson were issued in 2002, and so remain in
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the order of
the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?