Case: 15-14082 Date Filed: 06/26/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14082
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL JOHN HANSEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 26, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14082 Date Filed: 06/26/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Paul Hansen appeals his convictions for criminal contempt, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 401(3), arguing that he was not given the notice required by Fed. R.
Crim. P. 42(a) for prosecution of criminal contempt, and that a grand jury
subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).
I.
We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. In re Reed, 161
F.3d 1311, 1313 (11th Cir. 1998).
Under Rule 42, any person who commits criminal contempt may be
punished for that contempt after prosecution “on notice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a).
The district court must “give notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in
an arrest order[,]” and the notice must state the time and place of the trial, allow
the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the essential facts
constituting the charged criminal contempt. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1), (A), (B),
& (C). A contemnor may not raise on appeal the inadequacy of a contempt notice
unless he raised the inadequacy before the district court. See Reed, 161 F.3d at
1317.
Here, Hansen failed to object the notice inadequacy in the district court and,
thus, cannot raise the issue on appeal. Id. Notably, in his motion for judgment of
acquittal, Hansen only questioned whether the government had sufficiently
established a prima facie case.
2
Case: 15-14082 Date Filed: 06/26/2017 Page: 3 of 3
II.
Hanson did not present to the district court in the first instance his objection
that a grand jury subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C.
§ 401(3). We therefore consider the objection for plain error. United States v.
Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate plain error, the
defendant must show that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects
substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. “Plain” error means that the legal rule is
clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal. United States
v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015). Where the explicit language of a
statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error
absent a decision of the Supreme Court or this Court explicitly resolving the issue.
Id. Such error must be so clearly established and obvious “that it should not have
been permitted by the trial court even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in
detecting it.” Id. Hanson has cited nothing in the decisions of the Supreme Court
or this Court that renders his objection meritorious. He has not demonstrated
error, much less plain error.
AFFIRMED.
3