In Re: Cranford

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2003
_____________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-30502 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_____________________

VICTORIA M. CRANFORD,

Movant-Appellant.

---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-MC-5
---------------------

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victoria M. Cranford appeals the district court’s order

holding her in contempt of court and imposing a $10,000 fine for

her tardiness in appearing for a sentencing hearing. She argues

that the order should be vacated because it is not possible to

determine whether the order is civil or criminal in nature.

Because the apparent purpose of the order was punitive or “designed

to vindicate the authority of the court,” and because the extremely

large amount of the fine also indicates that the order was

punitive, we consider the order to be a criminal contempt order for

purposes of appellate review. See FDIC v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163,

168 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S Chuen On, 693

F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (5th Cir. 1982).

*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
 The district court improperly found Cranford in contempt

through the summary disposition procedure of FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(b).

See Thyssen, 693 F.2d at 1174-75 (summary disposition “ordinarily

... may not be used to punish an attorney for a contempt consisting

of lateness or absence from a scheduled court appearance” because

“the mere fact of absence [or lateness] does not constitute

contempt”). Further, the district court did not make findings that

Cranford’s tardiness violated 18 U.S.C. § 401, in that it involved

(1) misbehavior, (2) in or near the presence of the court, (3) with

criminal intent, and (4) that resulted in an obstruction of the

administration of justice. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Allied

Pilots Ass’n, 968 F.2d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 1992). Nor did the

district court provide notice to Cranford that the proceedings were

criminal in nature. See Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, 918 F.2d 564,

567 (5th Cir. 1990).

Therefore, the district court’s order is REVERSED and this

case is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to FED. R. CRIM.

P. 42(a).

REVERSED and REMANDED

2