William Black v. United States

Fourth Circuit

William Black v. United States

684 F. App'x 349

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2017

Docket16-2129

StatusUnpublished

This text of 684 F. App'x 349 (William Black v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Black v. United States, 684 F. App'x 349 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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- *350 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) (2012).

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 refíle [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 effect today.

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.

AFFIRMED

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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- *350 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) (2012).

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 refíle [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 effect today.

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.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 F. App'x 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-black-v-united-states-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack