United States of America v. James Chappell Dew, a/k/a J. Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a James Chappell Dew, Jr., a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED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

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 Decided: November 10, 2016
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

3
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 those
liabilities on Appellants’ jointly owned real property. 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 of 3 --