Fletcher v. United States, 5866.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 5866.,5866. |
| Citation | 174 F.2d 373 |
| Parties | FLETCHER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edmond C. Fletcher, pro se.
Robert N. Pollard, Jr., Assistant U. S. Attorney, and George R. Humrickhouse, U. S. Attorney, Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by Edmond C. Fletcher from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia adjudging him guilty of contempt of court and imposing a fine of fifty dollars as punishment for the contempt. The contempt consisted in holding himself out as an attorney licensed to practice in the court and filing a motion and supporting affidavit as such attorney in a cause pending therein. The facts are as follows:
On January 5, 1931, appellant was admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as a resident of Washington, D. C., on the motion of another attorney practicing before the court. He thereupon took the required oath and was duly enrolled among the attorneys practicing at its bar. Subsequently appellant was disbarred in the District of Columbia. Fletcher v. Laws, 62 App.D.C. 40, 64 F.2d 163; and, on June 20, 1933, on the basis of this disbarment, he was disbarred by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in an order which prohibited him from practicing law in that court or from holding himself out as a practitioner therein, and directed that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of the court. A subsequent motion by appellant to expunge from the records of the court the proceedings relating to his disbarment on the ground that same were void was denied in an order entered on April 29, 1948.
On December 19, 1947, there was instituted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia a civil action in which the complaint was signed by appellant and another attorney resident in the District; and on October 12, 1948, appellant filed or caused to be filed in the court a motion for summary judgment in that cause and a supporting affidavit, both of which he signed as attorney for the plaintiff. Hon. Albert V. Bryan, one of the Judges of the District, thereupon issued an order to appellant to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt for practicing law in the court and holding himself out as a practitioner therein. The notice to show cause was served on appellant in the District of Columbia. He appeared in person in response thereto and entered a special appearance, moving to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that process could not be served upon him beyond the jurisdiction of the court. When this motion was overruled, he filed an answer in which he admitted practicing law in the court and holding himself out as a practitioner therein, but denied that he had been disbarred, contending that the order of June 20, 1933, was not valid. The order to show cause was heard before Hon. John Paul, who adjudged the defendant guilty of contempt and fined him $50.
The points of appellant, eight in number, are addressed to three contentions, viz.: (1) that appellant was not properly brought before the court because the order to show cause was served upon him outside the District; (2) that the proceedings were void because not supported by a motion or affidavit of some person other than the judge who signed the order; and (3) that the order of disbarment was void. We think that there is no merit in any of these contentions.
So far as the service of the order to show cause is concerned, it seems clear that the service was sufficient. This was a proceeding in criminal contempt; and process, whether a warrant or a summons, against a defendant in a criminal proceeding may be served "at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States." See Rule 4(c) (2), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., also Brooks v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 636, 644. And apart from this, the defendant personally appeared in court in response...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...States v. Barnett, 346 F.2d 99 (5th Cir.1965); United States v. International Union, 190 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir.1951); Fletcher v. United States, 174 F.2d 373 (4th Cir. 1949); Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 448 F.Supp. 659 There is, however, a glaring defect to the criminal contempt option as a means of......
-
United States v. Maruyasu Indus. Co., Case No. 1:16–cr–64
...that it may make a distinction between a general appearance and a "Special Appearance" in this case. See Fletcher v. United States , 174 F.2d 373, 376 (4th Cir. 1949) (defendant in a criminal proceeding could not question the court's jurisdiction over his person when he was personally prese......
-
United States v. Hall
...provision itself contains no such exception and we know of no case qualifying its general description of offenses. See Fletcher v. United States, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 373, 376, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 851, 70 S.Ct. 82, 94 L.Ed. 521. Not long ago we refused to hold that the possibility of acc......
-
Van Sweringen v. Van Sweringen
...United States, supra; United States v. Wimberly, supra; Bowles v. United States, 50 F.2d 848 (4 Cir., 1931). And see Fletcher v. United States, 174 F.2d 373 (4 Cir., 1949), certiorari denied 338 U.S. 851, 70 S.Ct. 82, 94 L.Ed. 521 (1949); Osborne v. Purdome, 244 S.W.2d 1005, 29 A.L.R.2d 114......