Court Opinion

ID: 9912637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:52.249681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:15.914541
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1443      Doc: 12         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1443

        DEREK J. WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Court No. 1954-22).

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Derek J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory Attorney, Rachel
        Ida Wollitzer, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1443      Doc: 12         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Derek J. Williams appeals the tax court’s order entering a stipulated decision

        determining a deficiency in Williams’ 2018 income tax. Absent circumstances not present

        here, we will not entertain an appeal from a consent judgment. Cohen v. Va. Elec. & Power

        Co., 788 F.2d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 1986); White v. Comm’r, 776 F.2d 976, 977

        (11th Cir. 1985); see Thonen v. Jenkins, 455 F.2d 977, 977 (4th Cir. 1972) (a party “cannot

        appeal from an order entered with [his] consent unless [he] establish[es] facts to nullify

        [his] consent”). Because Williams does not challenge the validity of his consent, we

        dismiss his appeal. The Commissioner moved for an extension of time to file his appellate

        brief; we grant that motion and have reviewed the brief. 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.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2