COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, AtLe e and Senior Judge Clements

CHRIS V. SMALLS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0100-15-1 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 9, 2016 MARYELLEN C. SMALLS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS David F. Pugh, Judge (Chris V. Smalls, pro se , on brief). No brief for appellee.
Chris V. Smalls (father) appeals an order find ing him in contempt fo r failure to pay child support with arrearages. Father argues that th e trial court erred in (1 ) incarcerating him for his failure to pay child support; (2) including his Supplemental Secur ity Income (SSI) benefit in the computation of the guideline work sheet; (3) failing to pr ovide written findings required under Code § 20-108.1; (4) failing to consider the total in come of Maryellen C. Smalls (mot her) when calculating child support; (5) faili ng to exempt his SSI benefit when determining child support; (6) failing to comply with the guidelines fo r imputing income; (7) failing to provide written reasons for deviating from the guidelines; (8) failing to appo int a vocational expert to determine his ability to work; (9) refusing to acknowledge that he had been declar ed vocationally incapable of working under the Social Security Act; (10) refusing to review his documentati on of the fair value of certain items; (11) failing to make a fair distribution of moth er’s retirement plan; (12) failing to distribute property pursuant to Co de § 20.107.3; (13) fa iling to protect his right s under the Fourteenth

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Amendment; (14) failin g to provide evidence that he was not disabled and w illfully not pa ying child support; (15) failing to correctly calculate the amount of child suppo rt arrearages; (16) dissolving the pendent lite order prior to entering the final order; (17) refusing to permit hi s witness to speak at the contempt proceeding; (18) failing to provide him with a comple te and accurate copy of Form DC 637 reflecting his child support payments; and (19) threatening hi m with incarceration if he did not pay child support. 1 Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the d ecision of the trial cour t. See Rule 5A:27. On November 4, 2015, this C ourt informed father that his op ening brief failed to comply with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:4(d ), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), and 5A:20(h). Father was also informed that the amended opening brief must not vary from the or iginal pleading except as may be necessary to correct the deficiencies and that the failure to comply with the Rule s may result in summary affirmance. On Nove mber 9, 2015, father filed an amended opening brief, but it was substantially different from his original openin g brief. The amended opening br ief also failed to comply with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:20(c), and 5A:20(d). Rule 5A:20(c) mandates that an opening brief contain “[a] statement of the assignments of error with a clear and exact refere nce to the page(s) of the transcript, written st atement, record, or appendix where each assignment of error was preserved in the trial court.” Rule 5A:20(d) mandates that the opening brief co ntain “[a] clear and concise statemen t of the facts that relate to the assignments of error, with references to the pages of the transcript, wr itten statement, record, or appendix.” We find father’s failure to co mply with Rule 5A:20 is significant, so we will not consider his arguments. See Jay v. Comm onwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) (“the

1 Father failed to include the number 17 in his assignments of error, and we have renumbered his subsequent assignments of error for consistency.- 3 - Court of Appeals should . . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhe re to the requirements of [the Rules of Court] is insignificant . . .”); cf. Rules 5A:1(a) (authorizing dismissal of appeal or “such other penalty” deemed appropriate); 5A:26 (authorizing additional dismissal remedy in appropriate cases).
A pro se litigant appearing “is no less bound by the rules of procedure and substantive law than a defendant represented by counsel.” Townes v. Common wealth, 234 Va. 307, 319, 362 S.E.2d 650, 657 (1987) (quoting Church v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 208, 213, 33 5 S.E.2d 823, 826 (1985)). For the foregoing reas ons, the trial court’s ruling is su mmarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. 2
Affirmed.

2 Father also filed a motion for immediate revi ew of appeal, a motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Pugh, and a motion objecting to a document filed by mother. We deny the motions.