FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Sept. 30, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 7- 13 47 9
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 60 31 5- CR-WJZ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us LEE A. COHN, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Sep te m be r 30 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andEVANS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble Orinda

D. Evans, United States D istrict J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.The pri nc ip al qu es ti on th is ap pe al pre se nt s i s wh et he r cri m in al co nt em pt , 18 U.S.C. § 4 01 , sh ou ldbe cla ss ifi edas afel on y or am is de m ean or . W e co nc lu de th atcri m in al co nt em

ptis a su i g en eri s o ffen se an d t ha t i t i s n ei th er a fe lo ny no r a
m is de m ean or . I. A. On J an ua ry

7 an d 1 2, 2 00 5, Lee A. Coh n, a m em be r of th e Fl or id a b ar,
en te redhi s ap pe aran ce as ret ai ne d c ou ns el on be ha lf o f Ken ne th Lanc e Ma ll ory , who ha d b een in di ct edby a Sou th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a g ran d ju ry forpo ss es si on of crac k c oc ai ne wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1)
. Co hn rep res en te d M al lo ry th ro ug h t he fin al di sp os it io n o f th e cas e o n Au gu st5, 20 05 . On th atda te , th e d is tri ctco urt ac cep te d M al lo ry ’s pl ea o f gu il ty to t he ch arg e, whi ch ha d b een ten de redat ach an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng on Apri l 1 8, an d
se nt en cedMal lo ry

to 18 8 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d afou r-y ear t erm of
supe rv is edrel eas e. On J an ua ry

24 , 20 06 , th e U.S. Att orne y in fo rm edth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Co hn ha d b een di sb arre d b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt o n J an ua ry 9, 2 00 6, an d th athe ha d b een de cl ared“ no t el ig ib le to pra ct ic e la w inFlo rid a” o n Ap ril 6, 2 00 5
-- n earl y two week s b efo re Ma ll ory ten de redhi s p le a o f gu il ty. On Ma rch 29 , 220 06 , Mal lo ry , rep res en te d b y a co urt-app oi nt edatt orne y , m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e o n t he gro un d th atCo hn ’s in ab il it y

to pra ct ic e la w hadde pr iv edhi m of t he effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l athi s ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng an d s en te nc in g. Th e co urt g ran te d the
m ot io n o n M ay

25 , 20 06
. B. On Au gu st31 , 20 06 , th e d is tri ctco urt en te redanord er p ur su an t t o R ul e 42 (a) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e requi rin g C oh n t o s ho w cau se 1 why he s ho ul d n otbe he ldin cri m in al co nt em pt , un de r 18 U.S.C. § 4 01 , for 2 rep res en ti ng Mal lo ry

an d app eari ng be fo re the di stric t co urt “ aft er h av in g b een de em edno t el ig ib le to pra ct ic e la w in Flo rid a b y The Fl or id a Bar .” The o rd er st at edth atsu chco nduc t co ns ti tu te d acle ar v io la ti on of t he Sp eci al Ru le s Gov ern in g t he Adm is si on an d P ract ic e o f Att orne y s fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof
Fe d. R. Crim. P . 42 states, in pertinent pa rt: 1 (a) Disposition After Not ice. Any person who c ommits criminal conte mpt may be punished for

that contempt af

ter prose cution on notice. ( 1) Notic e. The c ourt must give the person notice in open cour t, in an orde r to show ca

use, or in an a

rre st order. The notice must:

. . . . (C) state the e ssential fac ts constituti ngthe cha rg ed criminal contempt.
The text of § 401 is set out in part I I I infra. 2 3Fl or id a.

Pu rs ua ntto th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er, the U.S. Atto rn ey ap pe aredto pr os ecu te th e co nt em

pt . At a h eari ng he ldon Nov em be r 9, 2 00 6, Co hn an no un ced th athe in te nd edto pl eadgu il ty to t he cri m in al co nt em ptch arg e, an d t he di st ric t
co urt i ns tru ct edth e p ro se cu to r an d d efen se co un se l t o s ub m itm em or an da ad dr es si ng th e que st io n o f whi ch of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es was “ m os t
an al og ou s” to th e § 40 1 o ffen se . After t he pa rti es co m pl ie d, t he di st ric t co urt
sc he du le d apl ea an d s en te nc in g h eari ng for Jan ua ry 29 , 20 07 . Whe n t he he ari ng
co nv en ed , th e co urt i nf

orm edth e p art ie s o f it s d et erm in at io n t ha t Co hn ’s off en se
was a cri m e o f cri m in al co nt em ptpu rs ua ntto 18 , U.S.C., Sect io n 4 01 (1 ), th atis a Cl as s A fel on y

an d, t he refo re, t he st atut ory pe na lt y wou ldbe li fe i m pr is on m en t, a m ax im

um term of l ife im pr is on m en t, p ro ba ti on wou ldno t b e au th or iz ed , th e m ax im um fin e wou ldbe $2 50 ,00 0, supe rv is edrel eas e wou ldno t b e g reat er t ha n fi ve y ears , andth ere wou ldbe a m an da to ry

sp eci al ass es sm en t o f $1 00
. 3 Bec au se th e co urt’s p os it io n was un an ti ci pa te d, t he co urt co nt in ue d t he he ari ng . On Ap ril 23 , 20 07 , th e d is tri ctco urt ac cep te d C oh n’s co nd it io na l p le a to
As we point out infra , 18 U.S.C. § 401 does not classify criminal conte mpt by

letter 3 g rade . Acc ordingto 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) (1), g overning sentenc ing c lassification of of fense s, if an off ense “ is not specifica lly

classified by

a letter g rade in the section def

ining it,” the of

fense is classified a s a Class A fe lony “if the max imum term of imprisonment authorized is . . . li fe imprisonment.”
4cri m in al co nt em pt
. At a s eco ndsen te nc in g h eari ng on Ju ly 9, 20 07 , th e co urt, 4 adhe rin g t o i ts Jan ua ry

29 an no un cem en t t ha t cr im in al co nt em ptco ns ti tu te s a Cl as s A fel on y , sen te nc edCo hn to for ty-fiv e d ay s’ im pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d by a fiv e-year term

of s up erv is edrel eas e, an d asp eci al ass es sm en t o f $1 00
. Thi s 5 ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. Co hn ask s t ha t we v acat e h is sen te nc e an d re m an d t he cas e to th e d is tri ct
co urt fo r res en te nc in g o n t he gro un d t ha t t he co urt erredin tre at in g c riminal

Fe d. R. Crim. P . 11(a) (2) state s, in pertinent par t: “Wit h the conse nt of the cour t and the 4 g overnme nt, a def

endant may

enter a conditional plea

of guilty . . . rese rvingin writing the rig ht to have a n appellate court re view an a dverse deter mination of a spec ified pre trial motion.” The conditional plea e nabled Cohn to cha lleng e on appe al the district cour t’s deter mination that criminal conte mpt is a Class A felony
. The district cour

t acc epted the Sente ncingGuidelines dete rmination articulate d in the 5 prese ntence repor

t (“the PSI ”) pr epar ed by

the cour t’s probation off

ice. The PSIdesig nated U.S.S.G. § 2J 1.2(b)( 2) as the guideline most analog ous to the criminal contempt Cohn had committed. Section 2J 1.2 provides for a base offe nse leve l of 14. The PSIincre ased the base offe nse leve l by

three levels for

“substantial interfe renc e with the administration of justice,” but reduc ed it by

three levels for

acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , for a total offense level of 14. B ased on a total offe nse leve l of 14 and a criminal history

cate g ory of I , the sentenc e ra

ng e ca lled for imprisonment of 15 to 21 months. Given a maxi mum term of imprisonment of 21 months, the PSIstated that Cohn’s cr iminal contempt constituted a Class E felony . (18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) (5) provides that a c rime for

which the maximum penalty of imprisonment is less than five year s but more than one year

is a Class E felony .) The c ourt, howeve r, consider ed the c rime a Class A felony . Addre ssing the que stions of restitution and fine, the cour t found that Cohn, who had alre ady made r estitution, was unable to pay a fine , but directe d him to participate in a substanc e abuse a nd mental hea lth prog ram. 5co nt em

ptas aCla ss A felo ny. W e rev ie w is su es of s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n d e 6
no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Matur in , 49 9 F .3d12 43 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). III. The pa rti es ag ree t ha t 1 8 U.S.C. § 40 1 c ov ers Co hn ’s cri m in al co nt em pt . It pr ov id es : A cou rt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s s ha ll ha ve po wer t o p un is h b y fin e o r im pr is on m en t, o r bo th , at i ts di sc ret io n, s uc h c on te m ptof i ts au th or ity , andno ne ot he r, as -- (1) M is be ha vi orof a ny pers on in it s p res en ce o r so ne ar t he ret o a s to ob st ru ctth e ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e; (2) M is be ha vi orof a ny of it s o ffi cers in th ei r of fic ia l t ran sa ct io ns ; (3) Di so be di en ce o r res is ta nc e to it s l awfu l wri t, p ro ces s, o rd er, ru le , dec ree, o r co m

m an d. Sect io n 4 01 do es no t s pe ci fy m ax im um or m in im um pe na lt ie s fo r it s v io la ti on , no r do es itass ig n afel on y

or m is de m ean orde si gn at io n o r gr ad e. Whe th er cr im in al
co nt em ptap pr op ria te ly fall s wi th in eit he r th e fel on y or m is de m ean or

cla ss ifi cat io n

As an a lternative ground for vacating his sentenc e, Cohn also ar gues that the district 6 court e rre d in determiningthat U.S.S.G. § 2J 1.2, “Obstruc tion of J ustice,” is the g uideline most analog ous to the offe nse of c riminal contempt. Section 2J 1.1, “Contempt,” is the guideline applicable to 18 U.S.C. § 401. I t instructs the sentencingcourt to apply U.S.S.G. § 2X5.1, “Other Offe nses,” be cause “misconduct c onstitut ing c ontempt varies significantly .” U.S.S.G. § 2J 1.1, comment. (n.1). Sec tion 2X5.1 provides that if an of fense is “a fe lony

for whic h no guideline expressly

has bee n promulg ated, a

pply the most analog ous offe nse guideline.” The district court dete rmined that Cohn’s cr iminal contempt is a Class A felony and that the most analog ous offe nse is obstruction of justice. B eca use we reve rse the district c ourt’s dete rmination that Cohn’s contempt was a felony , § 2X5.1 does not apply , and we need not r eac h the question of whe ther obstruc tion of justice was the c rime most analog ous to Cohn’s contempt. 6is a qu es ti on of f irs t i m pr es si on in th is cir cu it
. 7 Tit le 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 9, wh ic h c la ss ifi es off en se s ac co rd in g t o l et te r gr ad es , st at es th at“ [a]n o ffen se th atis no t s pe ci fic al ly clas si fie d b y a le tt er g rad e in th e The Ninth Circuit is the only court of a

ppeals to have ruled on this prec ise issue in a 7 repor ted dec ision. In United States v. Carpe nter, the c ontemner r efuse d to testify in response to a g rand jury

subpoena. 91 F .3d 1282, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (pe r cur iam). The g overnme nt argued that Carpente r’s c riminal contempt constituted a Class A fe lony based on the rea sons articulate d by the district court in this case . I d. at 1284. The district c ourt ac cepte d the ar gument and tre ated the contempt as a

Class A felony . The Ninth Circuit reve rsed, holdingthat the only simil arity criminal conte mpt bore to other Class A fe lonies was that § 401 did not specify a maximum term of imprisonment. Although a maxi mum penalty

is not specified “ for Class A fe lonies beca use Congr ess views a ll such felonies a s ext raor dinarily serious crimes,” the c ourt observe d that criminal conte mpts, “in contrast, include a broad r ang e of c onduct, from trivial to seve re.” I d. The Ninth Circuit elec ted to classify criminal conte mpt in accor dance with the maxi mum sentenc e a c ourt could impose for the most analog ous offe nse. I d. at 1285. The district c ourt had found that obstruction of justice, w ith a sentenc e ra ng e under the Guidelines of 6- 12 months, was the most analog ous offe nse to Carpe nter’s c ontempt. I d. Acc ording ly , the Ninth Circuit classified Car

penter ’s cr iminal contempt as a Class A misdemea nor. I d. We decline to adopt this method of classification. The method does not addr ess how to classify criminal conte mpt if a suff iciently analog ous guideline is absent. More importantly , maxi mum penalties are established by

statute, not the SentencingGuidelines. It is far fr om clear whether a district cour

t, in classifying a

criminal conte mpt, should use the max imum penalty called f or by the base offe nse leve l or the total offe nse leve l, including a ll possibl e enha nceme nts. J udg e B arke tt, in a special c oncurr ence , has addr essed the issue of classify ing c riminal contempt. See United States v. L ove, 449 F .3d 1154, 1157-59 (11th Cir. 2006) (pe r cur iam) (B arke tt, J ., specia lly

concur ring ). In that case , the def endant wa s convicted of

violating 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and sente nced to 45 da y s’ imprisonment and five year s’ supervise d rele ase by the same district c ourt who sentenc ed Cohn. The c ourt classified c ontempt as a Class A fe lony
. On appe al, this court did not addre ss the merits of the district cour t’s classification decision beca use it found that the def

endant ha d “induce d or invited the ruling .” I d. at 1157. J udg e Ba rkett opined “ that criminal conte mpt, as an off ense sui g eneris, cannot be br anded a Class A felony in ever y instance.” I d. at 1157-58. Othe rwise, “ patently absurd” and likely unconstitutional results, including har sh or disparate punishments, would result. I d. at 1158. J udg e B arke tt emphasized that criminal contempts are not universally “‘e x traordina

rily serious’” but rather “‘inc lude a br oad ra

ng e of c onduct, from trivial to seve re.’ ” I d. at 1158 (quoting Carpente r, 91 F .3d at 1284). Judge B arke tt asserted that the Carpente r appr oach w ould appropr iately

addre ss these conc erns; nonethe less, we do not adopt the Ca rpente r appr oach f

or the re asons above
. 7se ct io n d efi ni ng it , is cla ss ifi ed
. . . [acc or di ng to ] th e m ax im um term of im pr is on m en t au th or iz ed .” The d is tri ctco urt re as on edth atbe cau se a m ax im um pe na lty is no t s pe ci fie d i n § 40 1, a v io la ti on of t he st atut e is pu ni sh ab le by life im pr is on m en t. Pu rs ua ntto § 3 55 9, cr im es pu ni sh ab le by life im pr is on m en t ar e cl as si fie d a s C la ss A felo ni es . Cla ss A felo ns can no t b e se nt en cedto pro ba ti on . 8 W e d is ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th at§ 4 01 fal ls wit hi n t he
am bi t o f § 3 55 9's cla ss ifi cat io n s ch em e. Sect io n 4 01 co ve rs a br oa d ra ng e o f
co nduc t, as ackno wled ge d b y th e Supr em e Co urt. See , e.g., Frankv. Un it ed St at es , 39 5 U.S. 1 47 , 14 9, 8 9 S .Ct. 1 50 3, 1 50 5, 2 3 L.Ed .2d16 2 (1 96 9) (“ [A] pe rs on m ay

be fou ndin co nt em

ptof c ou rt f

ora gr eatm an y

di ffer en t t y

pe s o f of fen se s . . . . Con gr es s, p erh ap s i n re co gn it io n o f th e sc op e o f cri m in al co nt em pt , ha s au th or iz edco urts to im po se pe na lt ie s b utha s n otpl acedan y sp eci fic li m it s o n
In its entirety , subsection (a ) of 18 U.S.C. § 3559 states: 8 (a) Classification.--An of fense that is not specifica lly classified by

a letter grade in the sec tion definingit, is classified if the maxim um term of imprisonment authorized is-- (1) life imprisonment, or if the maxim um penalty is death, as a

Class A felony ; (2) twe nty -five year s or more, a s a Class B f elony ; (3) less than twe nty -five year s but ten or more year s, as a Class C felony ; (4) less than te n y ear s but five or more y ear s, as a Class D fe lony ; (5) less than f

ive year s but more than one year , as a Class E fe lony ; (6) one y ear

or less but more than six mont hs, as a Class A misdemea nor; (7) six m onths or less but more than thirty day s, as a Class B misdemeanor; (8) thirty day s or less but more than f ive day s, as a Class C misdemeanor; or (9) f ive day s or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infr action. 8th ei r di sc ret io n.” ); Gre en v. Un it edSta te s, 3 56 U.S. 16 5, 1 88 , 78 S.Ct . 63 2, 6 45 , 2

L.Ed.2 d 6 72 (19 58 ) (“ Co ng res s h as no t s een fitto im po se li m it at io ns on th e
se nt en ci ng po wer fo r co nt em pt s.”) , ov erru le d i n p arton ot he r gr ou nd s b y Blo om v. Il li no is , 39 1 U.S. 1 94 (19 68 ). Lik ewis e, a b ro adarra y of p en al ti es ex is ts for§ 40 1 v io la ti on s. No si ng le sen te nc in g g ui de li ne ap pl ie s t o § 40 1. Co urts , in
se nt en ci ng co nt em

ne rs , are d ire ct edto th e “ Oth er Offe ns es ” se ct io n o f th e Gui de li ne s ra th er t ha n asi ng le gu id el in e “ [b ]ecaus e m is co nduc t co ns ti tu ti ng
co nt em ptva rie s s ig ni fic an tl y

an d t he na tu re o f th e co nt em ptuo us co nduc t, t he ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch th e co nt em ptwas c omm it te d, t he effe ctth e m is co nduc t ha d o n t he adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e, an d the ne edto vi nd ic at e th e au th or it y of t he
co urt ar e h ig hl y

co nt ex t-d ep en de nt .” U.S.S.G. § 2 J1 .1, co m m en t. (n .1). 9 Uni fo rm cla ss ifi cat io n o f cri m in al co nt em ptwou ldbe in co ns is te ntwit h t he br ead th of § 40 1 andap pr op ria te sen te nc es forit s v io la ti on . On th e o th er h an d, i t
wou ldbe anim

pr act ic ab le , pai ns ta ki ng tas k i nd iv idua ll y to cla ss ify eachin st an ce of cri m in al co nt em

pt . Accor di ng ly, we ho ldth atcri m in al co nt em ptis be st

For cinga district cour

t to pigeonhole a criminal contempt into a felony or misdemeanor 9 cate g ory would impinge on its ability to impose appropriate sentenc es. Pursuant to § 3559, differ ent classific ations presc ribe va rious periods of imprisonment and supe rvised re lease and fines. Due to the varie ty

of conduc t which may

be punished a s criminal contempt, it is important that the district courts have flexibi lity in sentencing . For

example, a cour

t may be inclined to impose a short per iod of imprisonment but a leng thy term of supe rvised re lease or a stee p fine. Section 3559' s classification sy stem would not permit this flex ibilit y . 9cat eg or iz edas asu i g en eri s o ffen se , rat he r th an a fel on y or m is de m ean or . Thi s re ad in g o f § 4 01 is supp orte d b y th e Supr em e Co urt’s co ns is te nt cat eg or iz at io n o f cri m in al co nt em ptas asu i g en eri s o ffen se . See Ch eff v
. Sch na ck enbe rg , 38 4 U.S. 3 73 , 38 0, 8 6 S .Ct. 1 52 3, 1 52 6, 1 6 L.Ed .2d62 9 (1 96 6) (ref erri ng to cri m in al co nt em ptas “ an off

en se su i g en eri s” ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v. Ho lm es , 82 2 F .2d48 1, 4 93 (5t h C ir. 1 98 7) (“ [T]he Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r ch arac te riz edco nt em

ptas e it he r a fel on y

or am is de m ean or , bu t ra th er h as de sc rib editas ‘anoff

en se su i g en eri s.’”). Thi s re ad in g a ls o app ro pr ia te ly reflec ts th e d iff eren ces be twee n c riminal co nt em ptan d the tra di ti on al cri m es cla ss ifi ed pu rs ua ntto § 3 35 9. Cr im in al co nt em ptne edno t b e ch arg edby ind ic tm en t. See Fed . R. Cri m . P. 7(a )(1 ); F ed . R. Cri m . P. 42 (a). Th e d is tri ctco urts ha ve au th or it y to ap po in t p riv at e at to rn ey s t o i ni ti at e an d p ro se cu te a cri m in al co nt em ptcas e. You ng v. Un it edSta te s ex rel . Vui tt on et F il s S.A., 4 81 U.S. 78 7, 7 99 -8 01 , 10 7 S.Ct . 21 24 , 21 33 -3 4, 9 5 L.Ed .2d74 0 (1 98 7) ; Fe d. R. C rim. P. 42 (a)( 2)
. Co ns id eri ng th e sc op e o f § 4 01 an d t he wid e ran ge of s en te nc es th atm ay be im po se d fo r it s v io la ti on , Sup rem e Co urt ju ris prud en ce, an d t he di ffer en ces be twee n c riminal co nt em ptan d o th er cri m es , we ho ldth atcri m in al co nt em ptis an of fen se su i g en eri s t ha t ca nn otbe cla ss ifi edpu rs ua ntto § 3 55 9. Th e d is tri ctco urt
acco rd in gl y

erre d i n c la ss ifyin g c riminal co nt em ptas aCla ss A felo ny.
10IV.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he sen te nc e th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d i s v acat ed
an d t he cas e is rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g. VACATED AN D REMANDED.

11