UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1014
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHON P. BELL,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
CG BELLKOR, LLC,
Defendant,
KYLE A. STEPHENSON,
Receiver.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David Novak, Magistrate
Judge. (3:13-cv-00039-DJN-MHL)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, vacated in part, and
remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathon P. Bell, Appellant Pro Se. John David Folds, BAKER,
DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Washington, DC, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathon Bell appeals the district court’s ∗ orders
granting Federal National Mortgage Association’s motion for
summary judgment, finding Bell personally liable for $17,959.67
for civil contempt, and issuing a show cause order as to whether
Bell should be held in criminal contempt. We affirm in part,
dismiss in part, vacate in part, and remand for a recalculation
of damages as to Bell.
This Court “review[s] the ultimate decision as to
whether the contempt was proper for abuse of discretion, the
underlying legal questions de novo, and any factual findings for
clear error.” In re Under Seal, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 1465749, at
*6 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). To establish civil
contempt, a movant must demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the
alleged contemnor had actual or constructive
knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s
favor; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct
violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge
(at least constructive knowledge) of such violations;
and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result.
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)
(citation and alterations omitted). Civil contempt is an
∗
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
3
appropriate sanction only if the court has issued an order
“which sets forth in specific detail an unequivocal command
which a party has violated.” In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d
256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Bell’s transfer of $11,515.21 in funds prior to the district
court’s entry of its injunction was not in violation of an order
of the court. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the court’s
August 27 and December 11, 2013 orders related to Bell’s
damages. We remand the matter to permit the district court to
recalculate Bell’s liability for damages.
Bell’s remaining arguments on appeal are without
merit. We affirm the district court’s order granting summary
judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. Fed.
Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Bell, No. 3:13-cv-00039-DJN-MHL (E.D. Va.
Oct. 29, 2013). In light of Bell’s guilty plea, we dismiss as
moot Bell’s challenge to the district court’s order to show
cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. We grant
Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Federal
National Mortgage Association’s motion to strike Bell’s reply
brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED