Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul John HANSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-14082 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (June 26, 2017)
    Tiffany H. Eggers, Nancy J. Hess, Len-nard B. Register, III, Robert G. Davies, John Ryan Love, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Elaine Joan Mittleman, Law Office of Elaine J. Mittleman, Falls Church, VA, Paul John Hansen, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Hansen appeals his convictions for criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), arguing that he was not given the notice required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a) for prosecution of criminal contempt, and that a grand jury subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

I.

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. In re Reed, 161 F.3d 1311, 1313 (11th Cir. 1998).

Under Rule 42, any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution “on notice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). The district court must “give notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order[,]” and the notice must state the time and place of the trial, allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1), (A), (B), & (C). A con-temnor may not raise on appeal the inadequacy of a contempt notice unless he raised the inadequacy before the district court. See Reed, 161 F.3d at 1317.

Here, Hansen failed to object the notice inadequacy in the district court and, thus, cannot raise the issue on appeal. Id. Notably, in his motion for judgment of acquittal, Hansen only questioned whether the government had sufficiently established a prima facie case.

II.

Hansen did not present to the district court in the first instance his objection that a grand jury subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). We therefore consider the objection for plain error. United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id, “Plain” error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal. United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015). Where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error absent a decision of the Supreme Court or this Court explicitly resolving.the issue. Id. Such error must be so clearly established and obvious “that it should not have been permitted by the trial court even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it.” Id. Hansen has cited nothing in the decisions of the Supreme Court or this Court that renders his objection meritorious. He has not demonstrated error, much less plain error,

AFFIRMED.