US v. Kelvin Goode, No. 13-4154 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KELVIN DEWITT GOODE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-4184 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KELVIN DEWITT GOODE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00298-REP-1) Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel S. Guarnera, Third Year Law Student, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kelvin Dewitt Goode appeals his conviction for contempt during the revocation of his supervised release, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) (2006). * Goode claims that the district court erred in finding that his conduct sufficiently obstructed the administration of justice. The Government suggests that 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) does not require proof of an impediment to the court s operation where a party s misconduct occurs before malfeasance obstructive. the during court his Because and that, revocation we agree in any hearing with the event, was Goode s sufficiently Government s second contention, we do not reach the first and affirm. Generally, contempt conviction we review for findings clear error, of fact while underlying the a ultimate determination of guilt and other questions of law are reviewed de novo. United States v. Peoples, 698 F.3d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 915 (2013). failed to raise any objection to his Goode, however, summary conviction, and, therefore, we review for plain error. 192. To establish plain error, Goode must show: * contempt Id. at (1) there was Although this appeal is consolidated with Goode s appeal of the district court s orders revoking Goode s supervised release and denying Goode s motion to dismiss the petition to revoke his supervised release, Goode has not challenged either order on appeal. 3 error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). To convict someone of criminal contempt in violation of § 401(1), the Government must establish . . . : (1) misbehavior of a person, (2) which is in or near to the presence of the Court, (3) which obstructs the administration of justice, and (4) which is committed with the required degree of criminal intent. Peoples, 698 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 401(1) s phrase obstructs the administration of justice . . . lacks precise definition and requires some act that will interrupt the orderly process of the administration of justice, or thwart the judicial process. Id. at 190 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). To satisfy the obstruction element it suffices if the defendant s conduct . . . distract[ed] court personnel from, and delay[ed] them in, completing their duties. Id. at 191 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, when the district court asked Goode whether he understood his appellate rights, Goode took the opportunity to editorialize on the fairness of his fines from past convictions. When warned that the court would not argue the matter, Goode disregarded the admonition and commanded that the district court judge not speak further, rounding out his outburst by referring 4 to the judge with an expletive. Although brief, Goode s disregard of the court s inquiry, his failure to desist from further outburst, and his blatant, direct affront to the court s dignity and authority were sufficient to support the district court s conclusion that insults obstructed the proceeding. directed at Goode s orderly wholly needless completion of comments his and revocation See id. at 190-91 (noting that even brief insult court may support contempt conviction). We conclude, therefore, that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, in its determination that Goode obstructed the administration of justice. Accordingly, We dispense contentions with are oral we affirm Goode s contempt argument because the facts the materials adequately presented in conviction. and legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
