Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shango H. ALVES; Defendant Douglas C. Greene, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 136 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 04-10902
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shango H. ALVES; Defendant Douglas C. Greene, Appellant.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shango H. ALVES; Defendant Douglas C. Greene, Appellant.
No. 04-10902.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 14, 2005.
Douglas C. Greene, Johnson, Vaughn & Heiskell, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before GARWOOD, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Before us is an appeal by an attorney of a sanction order issued by the district court under Rule 57.8(b) of the Local Criminal Rules for the Northern District of Texas. We have reviewed the record, and we find no abuse of discretion with respect to the $750 fine assessed.
Appellant failed to appear before the district court for the scheduled arraignment of Appellant's client. The record supports the district court's finding that both a fax and email transmission were sent to Greene's office as notification of the arraignment and that Appellant's office received those transmissions. Such notification by electronic transmission was a service that Appellant himself had selected. Under Local Criminal Rule 57.8(b), the district court judge was authorized to take disciplinary action for Appellant's failure to comply with the order to appear and for conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.
We note that this is not the first occasion a district court has sanctioned Appellant for a tardy appearance or failure to appear. Indeed, this very appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution. In any event, our review is for abuse of discretion, see U.S. v. $49,000 Currency, 330 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2003); Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 363 (5th Cir.2002), and Greene has shown none. Neither has he shown that the sanction amounts to a finding of criminal contempt.
The sanction is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.