In Re: Smith

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10011
Summary Calendar
IN RE: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant,
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-MC-31-D
--------------------
September 26, 2001
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Lee Smith appeals his disbarment by the federal
district court following his disbarment by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Smith also appeals the
panel’s denial of his motions for a new trial and to stay
disbarment and he appeals District Court Chief Judge Buchmeyer’s
denial of his petition for extraordinary relief under the local
rules. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Smith’s
motions and his request for extraordinary relief.
Smith argues that the disbarment proceedings violated
principles of due process because the district court did not
appoint an independent prosecutor or hold an evidentiary hearing
where Smith could have presented unspecified expert testimony;
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10011
-2-
that the court’s refusal to dismiss the disciplinary proceeding
effectively “reversed” the Texas bar’s decision not to pursue
reciprocal disciplinary charges against Smith; that the district
court did not adequately address his arguments that he did not
receive due process in the Tenth Circuit disciplinary proceedings
and that the Tenth Circuit disbarred him based on inadequate
proof; that the disbarment proceedings should have been dismissed
as time-barred; that the actions for which he was disbarred in
the Tenth Circuit do not constitute "unethical behavior" under
the Northern District’s local rules; that the reciprocal
disbarment is unconstitutional because the Tenth Circuit’s
decision to disbar him is such a severe sanction that it amounts
to a conviction for criminal contempt and constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment; and that the district court panel members and
District Court Chief Judge Buchmeyer are biased against Smith and
refused to give him an impartial hearing.
Finally, Smith challenges the constitutionality of N.D. TX.
CIV. R. 83.8(c), which provides for reciprocal disbarment
proceedings, on the basis that the rule does not require that an
attorney facing disbarment charges be given notice of the
specific grounds for revoking his bar membership and an
opportunity to show cause why his bar membership should not be
revoked. We find it unnecessary to address this argument because
it is clear from the record that Smith received fair notice of
the charges against him and that he was given an opportunity to
present a defense and explain the charges. See In re Ruffalo,
390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968).
No. 01-10011
-3-
Having reviewed the record of Smith’s disciplinary
proceedings in the district court and in the Tenth Circuit, we
find no constitutional violation and no abuse of discretion in
the district court’s decision to disbar Smith. Selling v.
Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917); In re Dawson, 609 F.2d 1139,
1142 (5th Cir. 1980).
AFFIRMED.