Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States of America and Albert Rodriguez, Jr. v. George W. Meeks, as President of St. George Company

642 F.2d 732

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-02-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The order adjudging appellant George W. Meeks in contempt of court for failure to produce records of the St. George Corporation or to explain why he cannot produce them, and ordering his confinement until he purges himself of contempt is VACATED. Vacating this order does not bar proceedings undertaken to determine if appellant should be adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and confined for a fixed term for failure to obey the order of the court to produce the records. Any finding of contempt, however, cannot be grounded upon an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination by Meeks when asked to explain why he cannot now produce such records.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States of America and Albert Rodriguez, Jr. v. George W. Meeks, as President of St. George Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
UNITED STATES v. MEEKS,642 F.2d 732(5th Cir. 1981)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALBERT RODRIGUEZ, JR., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v.
GEORGE W. MEEKS, AS PRESIDENT OF ST. GEORGE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 80-2370.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Unit A.
February 10, 1981.
Ronald P. Guyer, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Michael L. Paup, Charles E. Brookhart, Richard N. Bush, Attys., M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Tax Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; Dorwin W. Suttle.
Before CHARLES CLARK, REAVLEY, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The order adjudging appellant George W. Meeks in contempt of court for failure to produce records of the St. George Corporation or to explain why he cannot produce them, and ordering his confinement until he purges himself of contempt is VACATED.

[2] Vacating this order does not bar proceedings undertaken to determine if appellant should be adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and confined for a fixed term for failure to obey the order of the court to produce the records. Any finding of contempt, however, cannot be grounded upon an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination by Meeks when asked to explain why he cannot now produce such records.

[3] Full opinion will be submitted later. Judge Reavley dissents.

[4] ORDER VACATED.

[5] Opinion issued, 5th Cir.,642 F.2d 733.Page 733