Cohen v. United States , 53 F. App'x 286 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    In the Case of: STANLEY L. COHEN,        
    STANLEY L. COHEN,
    Appellant,            No. 02-4443
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-01-226)
    Submitted: November 27, 2002
    Decided: December 23, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Patrick E. Brown, BROWN & WEINRAUB, L.L.C., Albany, New
    York, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Ste-
    phen W. Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    2                       IN THE CASE OF: COHEN
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley Cohen appeals his conviction and sentence for contempt of
    court in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 401
     (2000).* Finding no error, we
    affirm.
    Cohen first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
    the district court’s finding of criminal contempt. To determine
    whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this
    Court considers whether, taking the evidence in the light most favor-
    able to the government, any reasonable trier of fact could have found
    the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United
    States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942). This Court does not weigh the evi-
    dence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, the verdict
    must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.
    Id.; United States v. Murphy, 
    35 F.3d 143
    , 148 (4th Cir. 1994). A
    defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
    conviction faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 
    110 F.3d 1064
    , 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). With these standards in mind, we find the
    evidence was sufficient to support Cohen’s contempt conviction.
    Cohen next contends the district court denied him due process in
    several respects. Because Cohen failed to raise these issues before the
    district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano,
    
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32 (1993). Under the plain error standard, Cohen
    must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the
    error affected substantial rights. 
    Id.
     If these three elements are met,
    this court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only if the
    *Although neither the show cause order nor the district court’s final
    order identify a specific statute, the parties agree Cohen was held in
    criminal contempt. Moreover, it is clear from the record that Cohen was
    specifically found to be in violation of § 401(3).
    IN THE CASE OF: COHEN                           3
    error "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
    judicial proceedings." Id. We find no plain error.
    Finally, Cohen contends the district court judge testified at his con-
    tempt hearing, in violation of his due process rights and Fed. R. Evid.
    605. Although Cohen failed to object at the contempt hearing, Rule
    605 does not require contemporaneous objection. Fed. R. Evid. 605.
    Thus, review is for harmless error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). We
    find this argument to be without merit. The district court judge did not
    testify at Cohen’s proceeding, but merely exercised his common law
    power to explain, summarize and comment on the facts and evidence,
    and his power under Fed. R. Evid. 614 to question witnesses. Thus,
    Fed. R. Evid. 605 is inapplicable. See United States v. Paiva, 
    892 F.2d 148
    , 158-59 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 605 advisory
    committee’s note).
    Accordingly, we affirm Cohen’s conviction. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4443

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 286

Judges: Luttig, Traxler, King

Filed Date: 12/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024