01-1298 U.S. v. Dowell

Listen to this article

“Contrary to the government’s argument, we have repeatedly held that an error in designating the judgment will not result in a loss of appeal if the intent to appeal from the contested judgment may be inferred from the notice and if the appellee has not been misled by the defect. … Here, there is no ambiguity regarding the nature of Morano’s appeal; he is clearly attacking the Jan. 5 finding of civil contempt and the fine imposed. Moreover, the government does not argue that it was misled by the defect – indeed, it devotes 10 pages of its brief to defending the propriety of the sanction. We conclude that Morano has satisfied Rule 3’s requirements, and we have subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal.

“Contrary to Morano’s assertion that the sanction is punitive, the fine is remedial and therefore civil in nature: it compensates the court and the government for actual losses sustained as a result of Morano’s refusal to appear at trial. Morano’s recalcitrance imposed real loss; impaneling a jury costs money, and the district court tailored its sanction to compensate for these actual costs. … And though Morano argues that the sanction is criminal because the court ordered payment to the clerk of the court, he overlooks the obvious – federal taxpayers foot the bill for both the prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases.

Morano’s disobedience cost the taxpayers money, and the district court acted well within its authority by imposing a fine that does no more than compensate the Treasury for its actual damages.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Fairchild, J.