Court Opinion

ID: 9367500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 22:00:29.662162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.820125
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13651     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                              [PUBLISH]

                                    In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-13651
                           ____________________

       IN RE:

            Grand Jury Subpoena, FGJ-21-01-MIA.
                            ________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                       ________________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       WILSON, Circuit Judge:
              This case asks whether a finding of contempt absent the im-
       position of sanctions is directly appealable. Because our precedent
USCA11 Case: 21-13651      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 21-13651

       dictates that a contempt order must be accompanied by a noncon-
       tingent sanction to be directly appealable, this case is DISMISSED
       for lack of jurisdiction.
                                         I.
               The government served Appellant with three subpoenas di-
       rected at three business entities for which he is the document cus-
       todian. The subpoenas commanded the companies to appear and
       testify before the Grand Jury, produce documents, and certify that
       the records satisfied the business records exception to the hearsay
       rule. See Fed. R. Evid 803(6).
               Appellant moved to quash the subpoenas and asserted a
       Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege, arguing the re-
       quested documents could incriminate him as the sole manager,
       registered agent, owner, and operator of the companies. The dis-
       trict court denied Appellant’s motion and, since Appellant refused
       to comply with the subpoenas, found Appellant in civil contempt.
       The district court stayed issuance of sanctions pending appeal. Ap-
       pellant timely appealed.
                                         II.
              We are obligated to review our appellate jurisdiction sua
       sponte “whenever jurisdiction may be lacking.” Reaves v. Sec’y,
       Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 717 F.3d 886, 905 (11th Cir. 2013). Federal ap-
       pellate courts have jurisdiction to review “appeals from all final de-
       cisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
       see also Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198, 203 (1999)
USCA11 Case: 21-13651      Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       21-13651                Opinion of the Court                         3

       (“Section 1291 of the Judicial Code generally vests courts of appeals
       with jurisdiction over appeals from ‘final decisions’ of the district
       courts.”). This is known as the final judgment rule, which
              emphasizes the deference that appellate courts owe
              to the trial judge as the individual initially called upon
              to decide the many questions of law and fact that oc-
              cur in the course of a trial. Permitting piecemeal ap-
              peals would undermine the independence of the dis-
              trict judge, as well as the special role that individual
              plays in our judicial system. In addition, the rule is in
              accordance with the sensible policy of “avoid[ing] the
              obstruction to just claims that would come from per-
              mitting the harassment and cost of a succession of
              separate appeals from the various rulings to which a
              litigation may give rise, from its initiation to entry of
              judgment.” The rule also serves the important pur-
              pose of promoting efficient judicial administration.
       Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981)
       (alteration in original and internal citations omitted).
               Typically, a decision is sufficiently final when it “ends the
       litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
       execute the judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517,
       521–22 (1988). However, the Supreme Court has “interpreted the
       term ‘final decision’ in § 1291 to permit jurisdiction over appeals
       from a small category of orders that do not terminate the litiga-
       tion.” Cunningham, 527 U.S. at 204. These include decisions “that
USCA11 Case: 21-13651      Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13651

       are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in
       the underlying action.” Id. (quoting Swint v. Chambers Cnty.
       Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995)).
               We have held that contempt citations do not satisfy the final
       judgment rule unless there is both a finding of contempt and a non-
       contingent order of sanctions. See U.S. Commodity Futures Trad-
       ing Comm’n v. Escobio, 946 F.3d 1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2020) (ex-
       plaining that “[c]ontempt citations . . . are not immediately appeal-
       able unless there is ‘both a finding of contempt and a noncontin-
       gent order of sanction’”) (quoting Combs v. Ryan’s Coal Co., 785
       F.2d 970, 977 (11th Cir. 1986)); S.E.C. v. Kirkland, 533 F.3d 1323,
       1325 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The imposition of sanctions . . . is a prereq-
       uisite for appellate review of a contempt order.” (quoting Don’s
       Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 829 F.2d 1051, 1053 n.7 (11th
       Cir. 1987))); Sizzler Fam. Steak Houses v. W. Sizzlin Steak House,
       Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1533 n.1 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that impo-
       sition of sanction “rendered the contempt judgment final and made
       both the finding of contempt and the later sanction appealable un-
       der 28 U.S.C. § 1291”).
               We recognize the Court in United States v. Ryan described
       the two options for a recalcitrant witness as “either obey [the sub-
       poena’s] commands or refuse to do so and contest the validity of
       the subpoena if he is subsequently cited for contempt on account
       of his failure to obey.” 402 U.S. 530, 532 (1971); see also, e.g., In re
       Grand Jury Proc., 832 F.2d 554, 558 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[O]rders
       denying motions to quash grand jury subpoenas are ordinarily not
USCA11 Case: 21-13651      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       21-13651                Opinion of the Court                         5

       appealable final orders under section 1291. The subpoenaed party
       can obtain review by refusing to comply with the subpoena and
       then contesting a contempt citation, which is immediately appeal-
       able.”). However, the Court did not contemplate the jurisdictional
       nuances of a sanction-less contempt order. Ryan and its progeny
       were not appeals of contempt citations at all; they were appeals of
       mere denials of motions to quash grand jury subpoenas. They thus
       do not purport to decide whether a civil contempt citation is di-
       rectly appealable where the district court stays the consideration of
       sanctions pending appeal. Therefore, our precedents requiring a
       sanction to be imposed contemporaneously with a finding of con-
       tempt in order to be directly appealable are not inconsistent with
       Ryan’s directives.
              We also recognize that the Second Circuit has read Ryan dif-
       ferently, see In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas, 847 F.2d 1024,
       1027–28 (2d Cir. 1988), but we respectfully disagree. “A determi-
       nation that contempt has occurred is not final if the question of
       sanctions is postponed. . . . Finality . . . requires determination of
       both liability and sanction, just as with ordinary civil and criminal
       proceedings.” 15B Edward H. Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Jurisdic-
       tion § 3917 (2d ed, & June 2022 update).
              Nothing in this order today should be construed as limiting
       the discretion of the district court to stay execution of its sanctions
       order once it is entered, so long as the order imposes “a fine or
       penalty . . . within a time certain that may not be avoided by some
       other form of compliance.” Combs, 785 F.2d at 976; cf. Escobio,
USCA11 Case: 21-13651      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13651

       946 F.3d at 1250 (“Actual imposition of a penalty is not necessary
       for appellate review as ‘[b]eing placed under the threat of future
       sanction’ is ‘an unconditional present sanction’” (alteration in orig-
       inal) (quoting Sizzler, 793 F.2d at 1534 n.2)). Such a procedure
       would still avoid piecemeal appeals and be consistent with the in-
       struction to wait to appeal until there is “nothing for the [district]
       court to do but execute the judgment.” Biard, 486 U.S. at 521–22.
                                        III.
             Accordingly, as the district court has not yet imposed non-
       contingent sanctions, this case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.