United States of America v. Luther Bartrug

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUTHER BARTRUG; SANDRA B. BARTRUG,
Defendants - Appellants,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:95-cv-00769-RLW)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther Bartrug, Sandra B. Bartrug, Appellants Pro Se. Robert J.
Branman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;
Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Luther and Sandra Bartrug appeal from the district
court’s orders confirming the foreclosure sale of the Bartrugs’
property pursuant to a tax lien and denying the Bartrugs’ motion to
stay execution of the judgment. In their brief to this court, the
Bartrugs seek to challenge the propriety of the Internal Revenue
Service’s assessment of the underlying income tax liability and the
validity of the tax lien on the property. This appeal is untimely
as to the district court’s November 25, 1996, order upholding the
tax lien. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (providing sixty day
appeal period when the United States or its agency is a party);
Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (holding
that appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional).
This appeal is timely only as to the district court’s
orders confirming the sale of the property and denying the
Bartrugs’ motion for stay of execution of the judgment. The
Bartrugs have presented no arguments challenging these orders.
Therefore, they have waived review of these orders. See Fed. R.
App. P. 28(a)(9); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --