Filed: Sep. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONWAZEE RAYMOND BOSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-mc-00131-RJC-1) Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric J. Fost
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4712 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONWAZEE RAYMOND BOSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-mc-00131-RJC-1) Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric J. Foste..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONWAZEE RAYMOND BOSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-mc-00131-RJC-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Monwazee Raymond Boston appeals the district court’s
order finding him in contempt of court and imposing a five-
month-plus-twenty-day sentence. He challenges the court’s
exercise of its summary authority. Finding no abuse of
discretion, we affirm.
Boston was called to testify during the trial of three
known associates. After the oath was administered, Boston
stated, “I ain’t got nothing to say today.” The court directed
him to answer the question and had the oath repeated. Boston
agreed to the oath. After answering questions about his name
and residence, Boston was asked if he knew one of the
defendants. Boston responded that he did. When asked how he
knew the defendant, Boston provided a vague answer and then
asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to all other
questions.
The district court instructed Boston to answer the
questions and informed him that he had been granted immunity for
the charges about which he was being asked to testify. The
court explained, “You must answer questions in that area.”
The prosecutor resumed questioning, to which Boston
replied by again invoking the Fifth Amendment. The court
advised Boston that he could not plead the Fifth; he must answer
the question. After the question was repeated, Boston again
2
stated, “I plead the Fifth.” The court ordered Boston removed
from the courtroom, stating he would deal with the contempt
issue later.
During the subsequent show cause hearing, Boston
explained his testimony by stating that he felt “something
sinister” was behind his being compelled to testify and that he
thought the prosecutor was “up to something.” Boston had
previously informed the prosecutor that he did not want to
testify. He stated that the prosecutor had offered him a break
on his sentence for testifying, and also threatened him prior to
him being called to testify. The court informed Boston that the
show cause hearing was being held because Boston refused to
answer questions after the court informed him that he was
granted immunity and was required to answer. The court
reasoned, “There’s nothing sinister at all about a court
directing you to answer and about your refusal to do so.” The
court noted that he personally observed Boston’s “defiant
demeanor, his contemptuous refusal to comply with the directives
of the Court,” and sentenced him to five months and twenty days
for contempt of the court, to run consecutive to any other term
of imprisonment.
On appeal, Boston challenges the district court’s
exercise of its summary contempt authority, asserting that he
should have been allowed to consult with an attorney and that it
3
is not clear that Boston understood the terms used by the court
or that he had been granted immunity.
This court reviews for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s decision to invoke summary contempt authority.
United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 319 (1975). Rule 42(b)
provides that “the court . . . may summarily punish a person who
commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or
heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 42(b). Rule 42(b) does not require the appointment of an
attorney; rather, it authorizes the court to invoke summary
procedures when contumacious behavior is seen or heard by judge
and committed in the actual presence of court. United States v.
Vague,
697 F.2d 805 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Flynt,
756
F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985), amended,
764 F.2d 675.
Although Boston asserts a lack of understanding, no
such confusion is evident on the record. Rather, when given an
opportunity, Boston did not ask for clarification; nor did he
express any confusion or lack of understanding. We find no
abuse of discretion by the district court in summarily finding
Boston in contempt. See Wilson, 421 U.S. at 310 (holding
summary contempt appropriate “when a witness who has been
granted immunity, refuses on Fifth Amendment grounds to
testify”); In re Scott,
605 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1979) (upholding
summary contempt disposition where witness refused to testify
4
despite grant of immunity and district court’s order that he
testify). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of
contempt. 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
