United States v. Romero-Lopez, 661 F.3d 106

The First Circuit affirmed a district court sanction imposed on attorney Jorge L. Armenteros-Chervoni for failing to appear at a rescheduled sentencing, reducing the amount from $1,500 to $500.
The sentencing hearing was moved from 4:30 P.M. on May 12, 2010 to 9:30 A.M. the same day, with electronic notice of the change; all notices were issued through the court's electronic filing system.
Armenteros-Chervoni did not attend the rescheduled hearing and did not notify the court of unavailability.
Armenteros-Chervoni sought reconsideration, asserting lack of notice due to him and his secretary being out of the office and not checking emails, and criticized the court in his motion.
The district court imposed an inherent-power sanction, not a criminal contempt sanction, for failing to attend; the court did not issue a contempt finding or require Rule 42 procedures.
The panel affirmed the sanction but reduced it to $500, and noted better practice would be to hear from the attorney before imposing sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sanction was a proper inherent-power sanction rather than criminal contempt	Armenteros-Chervoni argued it was criminal contempt requiring Rule 42 procedures.	Armenteros-Chervoni contends the sanction is a civil/criminal-contempt type with applicable procedures; district court erred.	Proper inherent-power sanction; not criminal contempt.
Whether the amount of the sanction should be reduced	Discretionary authority to impose a substantial sanction for tardiness and nonappearance.	Sanction appropriate to deter nonappearance; no severe precedent justified a large amount.	Reduce sanction to $500; affirm as to use of inherent power with restraint.

United States v. Kouri-Perez, 187 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (inherent power to discipline attorneys; non-contempt sanctions exist)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent power to regulate courts; sanctions must be restrained)
In re Smothers, 322 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003) (district courts can sanction attorneys without contempt findings)
United States v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (recognizes category of punitive non-contempt sanctions)
Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 1998) (parties charged with knowledge of docket and notices in ongoing cases)
Witty v. Dukakis, 3 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 1993) (parties have independent obligation to monitor case developments)
Bills v. United States, 11 Fed. App'x 342 (4th Cir. 2001) (example of inherent-power sanction for attorney's failure to appear)