U.S. v. Rogers, s. 75-3010
| Decision Date | 08 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | 75-3098,Nos. 75-3010,s. 75-3010 |
| Citation | 534 F.2d 1134 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom R. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL OIL CORPORATION, etc., et. al., Defendants, Tom R. Rogers, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Emmett Colvin, Gary D. Jackson, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., William O. Wuester, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil S. Mathis, David Reed, Sp. Atty., Securities & Exchange Comm., Fort Worth, Tex., Michael J. Stewart, Martin S. Berglas, Securities & Exchange Comm., Washington, D. C., for the United States and S.E.C.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GODBOLD, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
In No. 75-3098, appellant Rogers seeks to have set aside a consent decree into which he entered enjoining him from various activities in the securities field. He claims that the decree was invalid because his counsel was ineffective, alleging that his attorneys (1) were representing codefendants with conflicting interests, and (2) did not advise him that criminal liability might result from defying the consent decree. Rogers relies primarily on Sixth Amendment standards governing the constitutional right to effective counsel in criminal cases. The consent decree, however, was rendered in a civil proceeding, SEC v. MacElvain, 417 F.2d 1134, 1138 (CA5, 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 972, 90 S.Ct. 1087, 25 L.Ed.2d 265 (1970), where such stringent standards do not apply. Cf. SEC v. Hughes, 481 F.2d 401, 403 (CA2, 1973). Putting aside precedents governing the constitutional law of criminal procedure, then, we see no basis for overturning the injunction. The conflict of interest here was at most a potential one, since no actual prejudice was shown. And Rogers was chargeable with knowledge that direct disobedience of the consent decree could lead to contempt sanctions.
Even if we were to agree that the consent decree was improperly rendered, the conclusion could not help Rogers in No. 75-3010, wherein he appeals from his contempt conviction. Under well-settled principles, the validity of the order he disobeyed was not open to question in the contempt proceeding. U. S. v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); U. S. v. Leyva, 513 F.2d 774, 776 (CA5, 1975).
The second argument Rogers advances in the criminal case is that the government should have brought him to trial under the procedures generally applicable to securities law violators rather than under the more abbreviated procedures of the federal contempt statute, 18 U.S.C. § 401. Insofar as this contention rests on constitutional grounds, it has been rejected in U. S. v. Bukowski, 435 F.2d 1094, 1099-102 (CA7), cert. denied, 401...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Conway
...and Judgment. Plaintiff was not entitled to effective, or even competent assistance of, counsel in this case. SeeUnited States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134, 1135 (5th Cir.1976).5 “Simply stated ... there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel on a civil case.......
-
Mekdeci By and Through Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat. Laboratories, a Div. of Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
...v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 776 (8th Cir.1981); see also United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1285 n. 4 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134, 1135 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976); In Re Grand Jury Matter, 682 F.2d 61, 66 (3d Cir.198......
-
In re Garcia
...civil cases is not protected by either the Sixth Amendment or article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. See United States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134, 1135 (5th Cir. 1976); Harris v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 803 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. App. 1990). Despite the lack of an explicit right to couns......
-
Smith v. Smith
...criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."); United States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134, 1135 (5th Cir. 1976). As a civil litigant, Mr. Smith has no right to hybrid and advisory counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Whatever rig......
-
Securities Regulation - John L. Latham and Jay E. Sloman
...144. Id. at 88 (citing Feeney v. SEC, 564 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978); and United States v. Rogers, 534 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 940 (1976)). 145. 18 F.3d 1527 (11th Cir. 1994). 146. Id. at 1529. 147. Id. The development district issued $1......