Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10765 Su m m ar y Cal endar

I N RE: GARYRAYW ARREN Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas USDC No

. 4 : 0 8

- M C- 0 2 4

- A

B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T h i s app ealconcerns a sancti on s or der by the di st ri ctcourtagainstG ary Ray W ar r e n i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h hi s re pr e s e nt at i o n o f J e f f r e y Al l e n Sm i t h i n a c r i m i nalc as e , N o . 4 : 05

- CR

- 19 5- A. The c o ur ti s s ue d t he sa nc t i o ns af t e rg r ant i ng rel i ef t o Sm i t h i n hi s hab eas act i on , N o. 4: 08-C V

- 025

- A , on i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun selgroun ds. Th e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that, i n representi n g S m i t h , W arren h adeng aged in con du ctu n becom i n g a m em ber of t h e bar an d u n et h i calbeh avior in v io la tio n o f th e lo c a l ru le s . A m o n go th e rth in g s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rca lls f o rd i s b a r me n to f

Wa r r e n f

r o m t h a tc o u r t
. We a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10765

2 C ri m i n alR u l e L C rR 57. 8(b) an d C ivi lR u l e L R 83. 8(b) of t h e L ocalR u l es of t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e N ort h ern D i st rict of T exas each pr o vi de t hat“ [ a] pr e s i di ng j udg e , a f t e rg ivi ng o ppo r t uni t y t o sho w ca us e t o t he
c o nt r ar y, m ay t ak e any ap pr o pr i at e di s c i pl i nar y ac t i o n a ga i ns tam e m be ro f t he b a rfo r. . . co n d u c t u n b e c o m in ga m e m b e ro f th e b a r ; . . . [o r] u n e th ic a l b e h a v io r .” C r i m i na lR u l e L C r R 57. 8( e) and C ivi lR ul e LR 83. 8( e) ea c h def i ne “ unet hi c al behavi or” i n t he c r i m i nala n d c ivi lc as e c ont ext , r es pec t ively, as c onduct“t hat vi ol ates t h e T exas D i sci pl i n ary R u l es of P rof essi on alC on du ct.” A s W arren concedes, w e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der of di sbarm en tf

or abu se of

di scr et i on o rg r a v e irr e g u la r ity
. S ee Ex pa rt e B u rr , 2 2 U .S . 5 2 9 , 5 3 0 (1 8 2 4 ). O n A pri l24, 200 8 an d M ay 1, 20 0 8 , t h e di st ri ctcourthel d h eari n gs on Sm i t h’ s habeas pet i t i ontha tf o c use d l ar gely o n t he ques t i on o f W ar r en’ s ef

fec t ive representat i on of

Sm i t h i n t h e cr i m i n alcase. O n M ay 2, 200 8, t h e court gran t ed Sm i t h r e l i e f

i n t he f o r m o f r e s e nt e nc i ng. On June 1 3, 2 00 8, t he c o ur ti s sue d a 3 4 -p a g e co lla te r a l o r d e rm a k in gte n ta tiv e fin d in g s th a t W a r r e n h a de n g a g e din
sa nct i onabl e m i sc onduct
. Th e Jun e 13, 2008 or dergave W ar r en unt i lJune 27, 20 08 t o s ho w c aus e t o t he c o nt r ar y, and i nvit e d W ar r e n t o r e que s t a he ar i ng and i ndi c at e if

he w ant e d t he co ur tt o s um m o n a ny o f t he pe r s o ns w ho t e s t i f i e d a tt he hab e as he ar i ngs . On June 2 7, 2 00 8, W ar r e n f i l e d ano t i c e t hatpr o vi de d: Pur s uantt o t he J une 1 3, 2 00 8 O r de ro f t he Cour t , t he u n der s i gne d a nd su bj ect of th e said D i scipli n a ryP roce ed i n g, w i th ou t w a ivin g a n y righ t t o ap pea lt h e C ou rt ’ s s an ct i on i n t h i s c ase, does herebyst ate th at he does n ot requ esta h eari n g i n this m att er and request t h e C ou rtenter j u dg m en tof w hat e ve rs anc t i o n t he Cour tde e m s a ppr opri ate i n t hi s m at t e rw i t ho ut f u rt h er s u bm i ssi on s orhea ri n gs, un l ess such f u rt h er s u bm i ssi on s or h ea ri n gs are de em ed n ece ssa rybythe C ou rt.N o. 08- 10765

3 O n Jul y 7, 2008, t he di st r i c tc our ti ss ued i ts fi n a lsanct i ons or der , f i ndi ng “by
c l earand c onvi nci ng evi denc e” t hatW ar r en “ engage d i n co ndu c tunbec om i ng a
m e m b e r o f th e b a r a n du n e th ica l be h a v ior” inv iola tion of R u le L C rR 5 7 .8(b )(3). Th e or der di sb ar r ed W ar r en f r om t he di st r i c tc our t , r equi r ed W ar r en t o di sg or ge t h e $35 00 fee h e rec eivedt o rep resent S m i t h , an d f orw arded noti ce of

t h e order t o t h e State B ar of

T exas. In sup port of

it s c on cl u si on t h at W arren engag ed i n “ u n et h i calbeh avior” i n vi ol ati on of R u l e 57. 8(b) ( 3) of t h e L ocalC ri m i n alR u l es, t h e di st ri ctcourtf i rst
m ad e t he f

o l l o w i ng f

i ndi ngs o f fac t r e l at i ng t o W ar r e n’ s r e pr e s e nt at i o n o f Sm i t h:

• H e ne gl e c t e d t i m e l y t o m e e t and c o nfe r w i t h Sm i t h co nc e r ni ng S m ith ’ s p r e s e n te n c e re p o r t fo rth e p u r p o s e o f . .

. o bje c tio n s . . . .

• H e ne gl e c t e d t o o bj e c t t o t he pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t

— i n pa r t i c ul ar , he fai l ed to cal lt h e cou rt ’ s att en t i on . . . t o t h e fai l u re of t h e prosecutor t o f i l e am o t i o n fo rdownw ar d de pa r t ur e unde rU SSG § 5K 1. 1, a nd t o asser tw h atever ot h er obj ect i on s m i gh tha v e b e e n app ropri ate

. . . . O n c e h e re a liz e dth a t t h e d e a d lin e fo rm a k in go bje c tio n s . . . hade xp i r e d, he ne gl e c t e d t o s ubm i t pr o po s e d o bj e c t i o ns . . . w i t h a m o tio n a s k in gle a v e to s u b m it t h e o bje c tio n s . . . .

• H e ne gl e c t e d t o po i nto utt o the prosec ut o r. . . pr i o rt o s e nt e nc i ng t h at [t h e prosecutor] shou l d h ave, bu tha d n ot , f i l ed a m ot i on f

or dow n w ard d epa rt u re.

• H e ne gl ec t ed t o c ons ul tw i t h Sm i t h bef or e i nf or m i ng t he c our tt hat S m i th h a dn o ob j ection to t h e p rese n ten ce re p ort.

• H e ne gl e c t e d t o m ak e kno w n t o t he c o ur ta tt he s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng t h at the govern m en tshou l d h ave f i l ed a m ot i on f

or dow n w ard d e p a r tu r e b a s e do n th e e x te n s iv e a s s is ta n c e a n dco o p e r a tio n h is cl i en tha d p rovi ded
. . . i n t h e . . . prosecuti on of ot h ers.

• H e ne gl ec t ed t o pur sue Sm i t h’ s appeal af t er i thad bee n per fec t ed by th e filin go f th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l a n dth e p a y m e n t o f th e fe e . . . .N o. 08- 10765

4 • H e neg l ect ed to i n form Sm i t h t h at th e app ealw as at ri sk of d i sm i ssa lbe ca u se o f W a rren ’ s fai l u re t o t a k e th e step s esse n ti a lto th e p u r s u it o f th e a p p e a l.

• H e ne gl e c t e d t o i nf o r m Sm i t h t hatt he a ppe alha d b e e n di s m i s s e d.

• H e n eg l ect e d t o tak e step s to cau se a cou rt- a p p oin tedattorn eyto r epl ac e hi m as S m i t h’ s at t or ney on appealonce he de t er m i ned t hat h e d idn o t p la n to p r o s e c u te th e a p p e a l o n S m ith ’ s b e h a lf. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e dth a t t h e fo r e g o in gfa ilu r e s b yW a r r e n v io la te dR u le 1. 01 o f t he Texas D i sc i pl i nary R ul es of Prof es si onal C onduct , w hi c h pro hibi t s an a ttorn eyf

rom con sciou sly disreg a rd i n g h i s ob l i ga ti on s to h i s cl i en t. I n f urt hersuppor tof

i t s c onc l usi on thatW ar r en h ad engag ed i n “ unet hi c al b eh a vior” u n d er R u l e 5 7
. 8 (b)( 3 ), the distri ct cou rt f ou n dtha t:

• W ar r e n k n o wi n g l y m a d e a fa l s e s t a t e m e n t o f m a t e r i a l fa c t t o t he c o u r t w h e n h e r e p r e s e n te d to th e c o u r t, u n d e ro a th , inh is a ffid a v it th a t S m ith a d v is e dh im n o t t o p u r s u e th e a p p e a l.

• W ar r en tes t i f

i ed fal se l y w hen he s ai d t hathe w as i nst r uct ed by Sm i t h’ s w i fe . . . no tt o pur s ue t he ap pe al he ha d p e r fe c t e d f r o m t he j udg m e nts e nt e nc i ng Sm i t h.

• W ar r e n t e s t i f

i e d fal s e l y w he n he s ai d t hat he t o l d [ Sm i t h ’ s w i fe] th a t h e w o u ldc h a r g e . . . $ 9 ,5 0 0 .0 0
. . . t o p r o s e c u te S m ith ’ s a p p e a l.

• W arren tes t i f

i ed fal sely w h en he sai d the h e d id n o t hea r f rom [ S m i t h ’ s w i fe] aga i n af t er h e gav e her an est i m ate th at th e fee f or a t r ansc r i ptw oul d be ar ound $1, 000. 00.

• W a r r e n te s tifie dfa ls e lyw h e n h e s a idth a th e co n c lu d e dh is con ve rsa ti on w i th [ S m i th ’ s w i fe] bysay i n g th a t he w a s n ot go i n g to d o a n y th in g. . . . T h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at the f oregoi n g fal se s t atem en t s vi ol ated R u l es 3
. 0 3 (a)( 1 ) a n d8.04 (a)( 3 ) of t h e T ex a s D i scipli n a ryR u l es o f P rof es si on a lC on d u ct,
w h i ch pr oh ib it fa l se sta tem en ts t o trib u n a l s an ddish on est con d u ct.N o. 08- 10765

5 In cl osi n g i t s reci t ati on of factf i n di n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtf u rt h er r eferenced W a rren ’ s i m p rop er fail u re to n oti fy this cou rt t h a t h e w a s n ot g oin g to p rose cu te S m i t h ’ s app eala n d h i s fau l t y ad vi ce to S m i t h an d h i s r el atives t h at itw as bett er t o r ai seobj ec t i ons t o the pr es ent enc e r epo r ton appe alt han ats ent enc i ng. W arr e n f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r a ne w t r i al and s upp o r t i ng m e m o r and um on Jul y 17, 2008, w hi c h w as deni ed byt he di st r i c tc our ton July 18, 2008. O n a ppe al , W ar r e n r ai s e s f ive o bj e c t i o ns , all o f w hi c h w e r ej e c t
. Fi r s t , he
c o n te n d s th a t “ [a ] ju d g e m a yn o t a s s u m e th e fu n c tio n s o f th e p r o s e c u to rin i nves t i gat i ng a c hargeof perj ury. ” The di st r i c tc our t , how eve r , di d nots erve as pr o s e c ut o rno rw as W ar r e n co nvi c t e d of perj ur y. I ti s s ue d am e m be rs anc t i o n, an d “ [ c] ou rt s enj oy broaddi scr et i on t o deter m i n e w h o m ay p ract i ce bef ore t h em a n dto reg u l a te the [ir] con d u ct .
. . . ” U
. S

. v. Nolen , 472 F
. 3d 362 , 371 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. S econd , W arren argues t h at t h ere w as i n suff i ci en t evid e n ce to con vi ct hi m of perj ury ors upportdi sb ar m ent
. Agai n, he w as notc onvi c t ed o f perj ury. M oreover, t h ere w as “ cl ear an d conv i n ci n g” evi den ce t o sup port t h e di st ri ct
cou rt’ s f i n d i n g o f “on e or m ore viol a ti on s w a rra n ti n g th i s ex trem e sa n cti on . ” In
r eMe dr ano , 9 56 F. 2d1 01 , 1 02 ( 5t h Ci r . 199 2)

. I n a ddit i o n, W ar r e n waive d a ny c hall e nget o s uc h f

i ndi ngs i n t he di s t r i c t c o ur t
. Thi r d, W ar r e n s ubm i t s t hatt he d i stri ct cou rt de p rive dh i m of d u e p roce ss b y u singu n a rti cu l a tedst andards
. Y et, t he di st r i c tc our tc l ear l y re l i ed on t he T exas D i sc i pl i nary R ul es of Pro fes si onal Conduc t , a s e xp r e s s l y ad o pt e d b y l o c alr ul e . W ar r e n t r i e s t o a dv anc e t he argu m en tt h at, i n is sui n g i t s ru l i n g w i t h a h abea s proceedi n g, t h e di st ri ctcourt
m a yh a v e e r r e d i n c i t i n gto th e lo c a l cr im in a l ru le s , ra th e rth a n th e lo c a l civ il
r ul es . Bu t , as not ed ab ove , bo t h se t s of r ules p rov i de t he s am e “unet hi c al b e h a v io r” s ta n d a r d s .N o. 08- 10765

6 W a r r e n ’ s fo u r th o bje c tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n “in i m pos i ng . . . di sb ar m entu pon one w i t h no pri ordi sc i pl i nary hi st or y. ” Though
w e a ppre c i at e the s er i ous nes s of W ar r en’ s penal t y, w e c onc l ude t hatt her e has been no ab u se o f di scr et i on , not onl y becau se t h e rec ord est abli shes repeated i n st an ces of

di shon estcondu ctan d d i sre g a rd f or hi s c l i en t ’ s i n t erest s but al so becau se W arren l ef

tt h e court ’ s f

i n di n gs ef

fect ivel y u n cha l l en gedby h i s w aiver of a hea ri n g. I tdoes not app ear t h at W arren ever presented hi s l ack of an y pri or di sci pl i n ary act i on s t o t h e di st ri ctcourt , ei t h er i n a h eari n g or even i n hi s m ot i on f or a n ew tri ala n d sup porti n g m em oran du m . F i f t h , an d f

i n al l y, W arren argu es t hathe w as no t give n ad e qua t e no t i c e i n v i o l at i o n o f t he Fi f t h Am e ndm e nt
. But W a rr en w as noti f

i ed of t h e al l egati on s agai n sthi m i n a 34-page p rel i m i n ary or deran d w as provi ded a f ul land fai roppo r t uni t y f ora hea r i ng. S e eNA S CO, Inc. v. Calc asi eu T

elevi si on & R ad i o, I

n c. , 8 9 4 F .2d 6 9 6 , 7 0 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). B a sed on the f

ore go i n g, w e h old th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s di scr et i on an d aff

i rm i t s s an ct i on s or der.