United States v. Kelvin Goode ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN DEWITT GOODE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN DEWITT GOODE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00298-REP-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States
Attorney, Daniel S. Guarnera, Third Year Law Student, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Dewitt Goode appeals his conviction for
contempt during the revocation of his supervised release, in
violation 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) (2006). * Goode claims that the
district court erred in finding that his conduct sufficiently
obstructed the administration of justice. The Government
suggests that 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) does not require proof of an
impediment to the court’s operation where a party’s misconduct
occurs before the court and that, in any event, Goode’s
malfeasance during his revocation hearing was sufficiently
obstructive. Because we agree with the Government’s second
contention, we do not reach the first and affirm.
Generally, we review findings of fact underlying a
contempt conviction for clear error, while the ultimate
determination of guilt and other questions of law are reviewed
de novo. United States v. Peoples, 698 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir.
2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 915 (2013). Goode, however,
failed to raise any objection to his summary contempt
conviction, and, therefore, we review for plain error. Id. at
192. To establish plain error, Goode must show: (1) there was
*
Although this appeal is consolidated with Goode’s appeal
of the district court’s orders revoking Goode’s supervised
release and denying Goode’s motion to dismiss the petition to
revoke his supervised release, Goode has not challenged either
order on appeal.
3
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993).
“To convict someone of criminal contempt in violation
of § 401(1), the Government must establish . . . : (1)
misbehavior of a person, (2) which is in or near to the presence
of the Court, (3) which obstructs the administration of justice,
and (4) which is committed with the required degree of criminal
intent.” Peoples, 698 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Section 401(1)’s “phrase obstructs the administration
of justice . . . lacks precise definition” and “requires some
act that will interrupt the orderly process of the
administration of justice, or thwart the judicial process.” Id.
at 190 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “To
satisfy the obstruction element it suffices if the defendant’s
conduct . . . distract[ed] court personnel from, and delay[ed]
them in, completing their duties.” Id. at 191 (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Here, when the district court asked Goode whether he
understood his appellate rights, Goode took the opportunity to
editorialize on the fairness of his fines from past convictions.
When warned that the court would not argue the matter, Goode
disregarded the admonition and commanded that the district court
judge not speak further, rounding out his outburst by referring
4
to the judge with an expletive. Although brief, Goode’s
disregard of the court’s inquiry, his failure to desist from
further outburst, and his blatant, direct affront to the court’s
dignity and authority were sufficient to support the district
court’s conclusion that Goode’s wholly needless comments and
insults obstructed the orderly completion of his revocation
proceeding. See id. at 190-91 (noting that even brief insult
directed at court may support contempt conviction). We
conclude, therefore, that the district court committed no error,
plain or otherwise, in its determination that Goode obstructed
the administration of justice.
Accordingly, we affirm Goode’s contempt conviction.
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
5