United States v. Jessie Snyder

Third Circuit

United States v. Jessie Snyder

429 F. App'x 181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2011

Docket10-3937

StatusUnpublished

This text of 429 F. App'x 181 (United States v. Jessie Snyder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jessie Snyder, 429 F. App'x 181 (3d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Jessie Snyder appeals the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 1991, a consent judgment was entered in favor of the government and against Snyder and her husband concerning the couple’s federal tax liabilities. The government then filed an abstract of the judgment in Butler County, Pennsylvania. However, despite its continuing efforts, the government has been unable to collect the judgment in full. In 2007, the government obtained an order of foreclosure and sale of properties belonging to Snyder. The order has not been executed because the occupants of the properties have refused to vacate the premises.

Under federal law, the initial 1991 judgment lien was scheduled to expire after 20 years. See 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(1). However, § 3201(c)(2) authorizes a party to renew the lien for an additional 20 years by filing notice with the court. The government here did so, and on August 19, 2010, the District Court approved the renewal of the judgment lien. Snyder then filed a timely notice of appeal.

In her brief, Snyder does not challenge the District Court’s order renewing the lien. Instead, she argues that, because she has provided the government with, in *182 her words, a “public money certificate,” 1 she has fully discharged her debt. See generally Trohimovich v. Dir. of Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 21 Wash.App. 243, 584 P.2d 467, 469-70 (1978) (explaining the basis for and the legal frivolity of this argument). In her previous appeals, Snyder has repeatedly raised this argument, and we have rejected it each time. See United States v. Snyder, 365 Fed.Appx. 407 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Snyder, 308 Fed.Appx. 651 (3rd Cir.2009); Snyder v. Everson, 237 Fed.Appx. 734 (3d Cir.2007). We will not entertain it again. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien.

1

. This "public money certificate” was a personal note by Snyder promising to pay the government $1.3 million.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Jessie Snyder appeals the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 1991, a consent judgment was entered in favor of the government and against Snyder and her husband concerning the couple’s federal tax liabilities. The government then filed an abstract of the judgment in Butler County, Pennsylvania. However, despite its continuing efforts, the government has been unable to collect the judgment in full. In 2007, the government obtained an order of foreclosure and sale of properties belonging to Snyder. The order has not been executed because the occupants of the properties have refused to vacate the premises.

Under federal law, the initial 1991 judgment lien was scheduled to expire after 20 years. See 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(1). However, § 3201(c)(2) authorizes a party to renew the lien for an additional 20 years by filing notice with the court. The government here did so, and on August 19, 2010, the District Court approved the renewal of the judgment lien. Snyder then filed a timely notice of appeal.

In her brief, Snyder does not challenge the District Court’s order renewing the lien. Instead, she argues that, because she has provided the government with, in *182 her words, a “public money certificate,” 1 she has fully discharged her debt. See generally Trohimovich v. Dir. of Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 21 Wash.App. 243, 584 P.2d 467, 469-70 (1978) (explaining the basis for and the legal frivolity of this argument). In her previous appeals, Snyder has repeatedly raised this argument, and we have rejected it each time. See United States v. Snyder, 365 Fed.Appx. 407 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Snyder, 308 Fed.Appx. 651 (3rd Cir.2009); Snyder v. Everson, 237 Fed.Appx. 734 (3d Cir.2007). We will not entertain it again. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien.

1

. This "public money certificate” was a personal note by Snyder promising to pay the government $1.3 million.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F. App'x 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jessie-snyder-ca3-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack