US v. James Dew, No. 15-2062 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES CHAPPELL DEW, a/k/a J. Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a James Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a James C. Dew, Jr., Defendant – Appellant, and VERONICA W. DEW; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendants. No. 15-2063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VERONICA W. DEW, Defendant – Appellant, and JAMES CHAPPELL DEW, a/k/a J. Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a James Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a James C. Dew, Jr.; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00166-TLW) Submitted: October 25, 2016 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: NIEMEYER, Circuit November 10, 2016 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Chappell Dew, Veronica W. Dew, Appellants Pro Se. Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Thomas J. Clark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., John Douglas Barnett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James and Veronica Dew (Appellants) appeal the district court’s order and judgment granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment in the United States’ action seeking to reduce to judgment Appellants’ federal income tax liabilities, and to foreclose the federal tax liens securing liabilities on Appellants’ jointly owned real property. those We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant James Dew’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s amended judgment. United States v. Dew, No. 4:14-cv-00166-TLW (D.S.C. May 19, 2016). 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.