United States v. Miguel Puente, 558 F. App'x 338

Puente appeals a contempt conviction, arguing improper contempt characterization and inadequate notice.
The district court labeled the contempt order civil, but the sanction was backward-looking and unconditional, indicating criminal contempt.
Puente failed to appear for sentencing on May 27, 2010, triggering contempt proceedings.
The government initially indicated it would not pursue criminal contempt and advised the court accordingly, affecting notice requirements.
A combined contempt and conspiracy-sentencing hearing followed, with the court treating the matter as civil contempt despite indicia of criminal nature.
Puente was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and sentenced; the contempt conviction was later vacated on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contempt proceeding civil or criminal in nature?	Puente	Puente argues criminal in nature; district court erred in civil label	Criminal in nature; reversed the contempt conviction.
Did Puente receive proper notice under Rule 42(a) for criminal contempt?	Puente	Notice was insufficient; no explicit criminal-notice given	No adequate notice; conviction vacated.
Was the contempt evidence sufficient if treated as criminal contempt?	Puente	Evidence supported criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt	Not reached; issue moot since notice defect requires vacatur.

Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1980) (nature of contempt proceedings and civil-criminal distinction discussed)
Adams, 918 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1990) (need explicit notice that proceeding is criminal)
In re Bradley, 588 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2009) (dominant criminal feature governs civil/criminal classification)
Port v. Heard, 764 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1985) (dominant criminal feature determines classification when mixed)