Aguilar

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Jorge Aguilar appeals his conviction and five-month sentence for contempt of court pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 1 for his refusal to testify as a witness in the trial of his co-defendant. 2 Aguilar argues that the district court erred when it invoked summary contempt procedures under Rule 42(a) instead of providing him notice and a hearing pursuant to Rule 42(b). He also contends that the sentence was excessive. We hold that the district court acted within its discretion in employ *599 ing Rule 42(a)’s summary contempt procedures.

1. Summary Contempt Under Rule 42(a)

In United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309 , 95 S.Ct. 1802 , 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975), the Supreme Court established two essential prerequisites for summary contempt: “that the contumacious behavior be seen or heard by the judge and that it be committed in the actual presence of the court.” In re Gustafson, 650 F.2d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.1981) (en banc). Both of these prerequisites were met here when Aguilar refused to testify, in violation of the judge’s order, in the presence of the judge.

Aguilar argues, however, that the court had no “pressing concern”…