SEC v. Resrc Devel Intl Inc ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-11397
Summary Calendar
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
versus
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL L.L.C.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DAVID EDWARDS; JAMES EDWARDS; KEVIN LYNDS; EDWARD
MORRIS HARRIS, President, Jade Asset Management, Ltd.,
Defendants-Appellants,
________________________________________________________
DAVID EUGENE EDWARDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden, FDC Seagoville,
Respondent-Appellee,
________________________________________________________
KEVIN WADSWORTH LYNDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden, FDC Seagoville, Texas
Respondent-Appellee,
No. 02-11397
-2-
____________________________________________________
JAMES EUGENE EDWARDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden, FDC Seagoville,
Respondent-Appellee,
______________________________________________________
EDWARD MORRIS HARRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden, FDC Seagoville, Texas
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 3:02-CV-605-R
3:02-CV-1743-R
3:02-CV-1744-R
3:02-CV-1745
3:02-CV1746-R
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Eugene Edwards, Kevin Wadsworth Lynds, James Eugene
Edwards, and Edward Morris Harris appeal the district court’s
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-11397
-3-
denial of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions challenging their
incarcerations for civil contempt. In an appeal from the denial
of habeas relief, this court reviews a district court’s findings
of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo. See Moody v.
Johnson, 139 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir. 1998).
The defendants argue that the district court lacked
jurisdiction over the underlying civil action because it is a
“United States District Court” and not a “district court of the
United States.” They argue that, for the same reason, the
district court lacked authority to order that they be held in
custody. These claims are frivolous.
The defendants also argue that the district court’s contempt
orders could not be enforced outside of the district court’s
territorial jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 4.1(b) provides, “An
order of civil commitment of a person held to be in contempt of a
decree or injunction issued to enforce the laws of the United
States may be served and enforced in any district.” Because the
instant case involves the defendants’ alleged violation of
various federal securities laws, the district court’s contempt
orders were issued to “enforce the laws of the United States.”
Therefore, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4.1(b), the district
court’s contempt orders were properly served and enforced in any
district. This issue is without merit.
The defendants argue that their due process rights were
violated because they did not receive notice of the contempt
No. 02-11397
-4-
hearings. Defendant Harris’s claims are without merit; the
record contains a sworn affidavit stating that he had been
personally served with notice of his first contempt hearing and
subsequent contempt hearings were held after Harris had been
taken into custody. Defendants James and David Edwards’ claims
are also without merit; the record contains a certificate of
service indicating that they were mailed notice of the hearing by
the appointed receiver and subsequent contempt hearings were held
after they had been taken into custody. See FED. R. CIV. P. 77(d)
(any party may serve notice of court order); FED. R. CIV. P.
5(b)(2)(B) (service complete upon mailing to party’s last known
address). Defendant Lynds’ claim also is without merit; based on
the pleadings and the record, we conclude that the district
court’s finding that he did receive proper notice of the hearing
was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d
430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A factual finding is not clearly
erroneous as long as the finding is plausible in light of the
record as a whole.”).
AFFIRMED.