UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In the Case of: STANLEY L. COHEN, 

STANLEY L. COHEN,

Appellant,  No. 02-4443

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-226)

Submitted: November 27, 2002

Decided: December 23, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Patrick E. Brown, BROWN & WEINRAUB, L.L.C., Albany, New

York, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Stanley Cohen appeals his conviction and sentence for contempt of

court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401 (2000).* Finding no error, we

affirm. 

Cohen first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

the district court’s finding of criminal contempt. To determine

whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this

Court considers whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any reasonable trier of fact could have found

the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). This Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, the verdict

must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Id.; United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). A

defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

conviction faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d

1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). With these standards in mind, we find the

evidence was sufficient to support Cohen’s contempt conviction. 

Cohen next contends the district court denied him due process in

several respects. Because Cohen failed to raise these issues before the

district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Under the plain error standard, Cohen

must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the

error affected substantial rights. Id. If these three elements are met,

this court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only if the

*Although neither the show cause order nor the district court’s final

order identify a specific statute, the parties agree Cohen was held in

criminal contempt. Moreover, it is clear from the record that Cohen was

specifically found to be in violation of § 401(3). 

2 IN THE CASE OF: COHEN
error "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings." Id. We find no plain error. 

Finally, Cohen contends the district court judge testified at his contempt hearing, in violation of his due process rights and Fed. R. Evid.

605. Although Cohen failed to object at the contempt hearing, Rule

605 does not require contemporaneous objection. Fed. R. Evid. 605.

Thus, review is for harmless error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). We

find this argument to be without merit. The district court judge did not

testify at Cohen’s proceeding, but merely exercised his common law

power to explain, summarize and comment on the facts and evidence,

and his power under Fed. R. Evid. 614 to question witnesses. Thus,

Fed. R. Evid. 605 is inapplicable. See United States v. Paiva, 892

F.2d 148, 158-59 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 605 advisory

committee’s note). 

Accordingly, we affirm Cohen’s conviction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

IN THE CASE OF: COHEN 3