UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANTE JAMON WALKER (2023)

ORDER OF SUMMARY CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

This matter came before the Court on June 21, 2023 for an initial appearance on a petition to revoke Defendant's supervised release. Throughout the initial appearance, Defendant engaged in obstreperous conduct and refused to comply with the Court's instructions. Defendant was warned that if he continued to engage in such conduct, he would be found in summary criminal contempt. Nonetheless, Defendant's obstreperous conduct persisted. The Court, therefore, exercised its summary criminal contempt authority and imposed a sentence of fifteen days of imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2), (5). This order supplements the Court's oral decision of June 21, 2023.

I. Background

Defendant was convicted in 2009 of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of crack cocaine. Because of his criminal history and the quantity of narcotics involved, Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. Due to subsequent changes in the law, Defendant's sentence was reduced and he was released from imprisonment in 2020. (Doc. 184). Upon his release, Defendant began serving a period of 8 years' supervised release.

On December 16, 2022, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a petition to revoke Defendant's supervised release. (Doc. 185). The petition alleges that Defendant violated his supervised release by (1) repeatedly testing positive for controlled substances; (2) being charged by state authorities with trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of fentanyl, possession of marijuana, and obstruction; and (3) associating with an individual who is engaging in criminal activity. (Id.). A warrant was issued based on the allegations in the petition.

On June 21, 2023, Defendant came before the Court for an initial appearance on the petition. During the hearing, Defendant declined representation by counsel and elected to proceed pro se. It quickly became clear during the hearing that Defendant intended to be obstreperous and uncooperative. He repeatedly provided evasive answers to the questions asked by the Court. Instead of answering the Court's simple questions, Defendant chose to make nonsensical statements of the sort commonly used by so-called “sovereign citizens.”

For example, Defendant denied that he was the individual listed on the Court documents. Rather, he claimed to go by a different name now. And he informed the Court that the person listed on the Court documents was not him but was “his property” that he was “managing.” Defendant denied that he was actually on supervised release, which he claimed was evidenced by the fact that the name on the Court documents did not match the name that he now says he goes by. On numerous occasions, Defendant responded to the Court's questions by citing the Uniform Commercial Code—a completely irrelevant legal authority in this federal criminal proceeding.¹ When asked by the Court (as part of the required Faretta self-representation colloquy) if he had any legal training, Defendant falsely stated that he had attended law school. On numerous occasions, Defendant responded to the Court's questions by referring to “contracts of adhesion.” At another point in the hearing, Defendant stated that he wished to make the Court the “beneficiary of his trust.” Defendant repeatedly talked over and interrupted the Court.

After several unsuccessful attempts to get Defendant to answer the Court's questions directly without irrelevant ranting, the Court warned Defendant that he would be found in contempt of court if his conduct continued. That warning failed to deter Defendant. The Court, therefore, exercised its summary criminal contempt power and imposed a sentence of fifteen days' imprisonment.

II. Discussion

The contempt powers of a U.S. Magistrate Judge are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). Those powers include summary criminal contempt, which is provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2). That provision states: “A magistrate judge shall have the power to punish summarily by fine or imprisonment, or both, such contempt of the authority of such magistrate judge constituting misbehavior of any person in the magistrate judge's presence so as to obstruct the administration of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2). As for the possible punishment, the statute provides that the sentence imposed under § 636(e)(2) “shall not exceed the penalties for a Class C misdemeanor.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(5). And a Class C misdemeanor is punishable by up to thirty days' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. 18 U.S.C. § 3581(b)(8); 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(6). A summary contempt order should recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the Clerk of Court. United States v. Williams, No. 3:19-cr-68, 2023 WL 2593021, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2023).

It has long been recognized that the contempt power is “essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings.” Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987) (internal quotations omitted). Federal judges are vested with the authority to “impose silence, respect, and decorum in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Put another way, the judiciary “must have and exercise authority and power over the control and conduct of judicial proceedings.” In re Chaplain, 621 F.2d 1272, 1277 (4th Cir. 1980).

For a U.S. Magistrate Judge to enter a summary criminal contempt order, “the contumacious conduct must occur in the actual presence of the court.” Matter of Heathcock, 696 F.2d 1362, 1364 (11th Cir. 1983) (internal quotations omitted). Summary criminal contempt is designed to “provide the court with an immediate means of discipline to vindicate and preserve the authority of the court.” Id. at 1365. Thus, summary criminal contempt allows the “court to punish without benefit of counsel, notice, jury, indictment, or presentation of a defense.” Id. The refusal to answer a Court's questions “plainly ․ constitute[s] contemptuous conduct” and may form the basis for summary criminal contempt. United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 315 (1975). Similarly, disrespectful and obstructive conduct that persists after a warning by the court may form the basis for summary criminal contempt. See In re Chaplain, 621 F.2d at 1277 (explaining that contempt was appropriate based on “disruptive and obstructive” conduct that continued after the court issued a warning); see also Williams, 2023 WL 2593021, at *1 (imposing thirty days of imprisonment for summary criminal contempt where defendant continued speaking disrespectfully after being ordered by the U.S. Magistrate Judge to stop talking).

As discussed above, in this case Defendant engaged in obstreperous and disrespectful conduct throughout the initial appearance on June 21, 2023, while the undersigned was present. Defendant consistently attempted to evade the Court's questions by providing nonsensical answers to simple questions. The nonsensical answers were of the type typically provided by so-called “sovereign citizens.” On several occasions, Defendant interrupted and attempted to speak over the Court. Defendant provided false information to the Court during the proceeding. Defendant was intentionally uncooperative throughout the proceeding. His conduct turned what should have been a simple and straightforward proceeding into a lengthy hearing.² The Court specifically notified Defendant that if his conduct continued, then he would be found in contempt. He was undeterred. Defendant engaged in behavior during the hearing that was intended to frustrate the legal proceedings and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. The summary criminal contempt power exists to “provide the court with an immediate means of discipline to vindicate and preserve the authority of the court.” Matter of Heathcock, 696 F.2d at 1365. And that is precisely why the Court used its summary criminal contempt power here.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court has found Defendant to be in summary criminal contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2). The Court has determined that fifteen days of incarceration is the appropriate sentence for the summary criminal contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(5). Accordingly, Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for fifteen days of imprisonment.³

SO ORDERED this the 23rd of June 2023.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant has previously submitted filings that contain similar information. For example, he filed a “jurisdictional challenge” (Doc. 187) that included the following on the signature block: “Non-Domestic Without the U.S. All Rights reserved Pursuant to UCC-1-207, UCC1-103.6 And UCC 1-308. Without prejudice.”

2.   Although not a basis for the Court's decision, the Court would note that Defendant also refused to cooperate with the U.S. Marshals Service throughout his time at the courthouse.

3.   The sentence was imposed at the hearing on June 21, 2023 and should run from that date forward.

Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge