United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Donald Entzel, Defendant-appellant, 947 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Donald Entzel appeals from a contempt order on grounds that the district court improperly presumed a witness was truthful merely because that witness was an attorney. This contention is meritless. The issue before the district court was whether Entzel knew he was obliged to appear in bankruptcy court on April 2, 1990. The court found many facts that supported its conclusion that Entzel willfully failed to appear before the bankruptcy judge as ordered.

In finding that Entzel knew about the April 2, 1990 court appearance, the district court relied upon 1) the fact that the notice to appear was not returned by the post office, suggesting that the notice was properly delivered, 2) the letter dated March 29, 1990 from Lawrence L. Tracy to Entzel describing the nature of the April 2nd hearing and the importance of Mr. Entzel's presence, 3) the fact that Tracy and Entzel met before April 2, 1990, corroborating Tracy's testimony that he informed Entzel of the obligatory hearing, and 4) Tracy's credibility on the stand. By articulating its reasons for its findings, the district court did not reveal an impermissible presumption upon which it relied.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.