United States v. Hassell

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 12, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11234
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MELVIN R. HASSELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-312-ALL-G
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Melvin R. Hassell appeals from his criminal contempt
conviction and sentence imposed in a bench proceeding for
violating the district court’s order not to interfere in a tax
sale of his property. Hassell argues that the district court
retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights,
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, conspired with a Department
of Justice attorney, and denied him a jury trial. The Government
moves to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-11234
-2-
A conviction for criminal contempt is authorized under 18
U.S.C. § 401(3) upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of 1) a
reasonably specific order; 2) violation of the order; and 3) the
willful intent to violate the order. United States v. Landerman,
109 F.3d 1053, 1068 (5th Cir.), modified in part on other
grounds, 116 F.3d 119 (5th Cir. 1997). A criminal contempt need
not be charged by indictment. See United States v. Nunn, 622
F.2d 802, 803-04 (5th Cir. 1980); FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(a).
Further, a jury is required only if the contempt action carries a
penalty of more than six months of imprisonment. See National
Maritime Union v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp., 737 F.2d 1395, 1400
(5th Cir. 1984).
We conclude that Hassell was given proper notice of the
contempt proceeding and that the district court’s finding of
guilt was not erroneous. Hassell’s appeal is without arguable
merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, the
Government’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is
dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --