UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KELVIN DEWITT GOODE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KELVIN DEWITT GOODE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00298-REP-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. 

Pratt, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United 

States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Daniel S. Guarnera, Third Year Law Student, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Dewitt Goode appeals his conviction for 

contempt during the revocation of his supervised release, in 

violation 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) (2006).* Goode claims that the 

district court erred in finding that his conduct sufficiently 

obstructed the administration of justice. The Government 

suggests that 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) does not require proof of an 

impediment to the court’s operation where a party’s misconduct 

occurs before the court and that, in any event, Goode’s 

malfeasance during his revocation hearing was sufficiently 

obstructive. Because we agree with the Government’s second 

contention, we do not reach the first and affirm. 

Generally, we review findings of fact underlying a 

contempt conviction for clear error, while the ultimate 

determination of guilt and other questions of law are reviewed 

de novo. United States v. Peoples, 698 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 

2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 915 (2013). Goode, however, 

failed to raise any objection to his summary contempt 

conviction, and, therefore, we review for plain error. Id. at 

192. To establish plain error, Goode must show: (1) there was 

 * Although this appeal is consolidated with Goode’s appeal 

of the district court’s orders revoking Goode’s supervised 

release and denying Goode’s motion to dismiss the petition to

revoke his supervised release, Goode has not challenged either 

order on appeal. 
4

error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his 

substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 

(1993). 

“To convict someone of criminal contempt in violation 

of § 401(1), the Government must establish . . . : (1) 

misbehavior of a person, (2) which is in or near to the presence 

of the Court, (3) which obstructs the administration of justice, 

and (4) which is committed with the required degree of criminal 

intent.” Peoples, 698 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Section 401(1)’s “phrase obstructs the administration 

of justice . . . lacks precise definition” and “requires some 

act that will interrupt the orderly process of the 

administration of justice, or thwart the judicial process.” Id.

at 190 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “To 

satisfy the obstruction element it suffices if the defendant’s 

conduct . . . distract[ed] court personnel from, and delay[ed]

them in, completing their duties.” Id. at 191 (internal 

quotation marks and alteration omitted). 

Here, when the district court asked Goode whether he 

understood his appellate rights, Goode took the opportunity to 

editorialize on the fairness of his fines from past convictions. 

When warned that the court would not argue the matter, Goode 

disregarded the admonition and commanded that the district court 

judge not speak further, rounding out his outburst by referring 
5

to the judge with an expletive. Although brief, Goode’s 

disregard of the court’s inquiry, his failure to desist from 

further outburst, and his blatant, direct affront to the court’s 

dignity and authority were sufficient to support the district 

court’s conclusion that Goode’s wholly needless comments and 

insults obstructed the orderly completion of his revocation 

proceeding. See id. at 190-91 (noting that even brief insult 

directed at court may support contempt conviction). We 

conclude, therefore, that the district court committed no error, 

plain or otherwise, in its determination that Goode obstructed 

the administration of justice. 

Accordingly, we affirm Goode’s contempt conviction. 

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