ÿWPCä ésãò¼Ÿž÷ä§¿@à(X¶ôþL Ûéµ*ÊU†²ðHó¼Í–—§ âå#[B+K†--æˆ:ÙýÞÍÖÝKl…Àú›X¿SŠ*µ5‘ ïˆ\å^[b¤u>Í+¨‹J:üÇ{Ä–ÑFvmG°¤ZRÊÞ'"˜Ú‚±} C/@q‹÷ßÔïG‰÷|¶üU.’—:˜—€‚í‰,—Eªxçu þÕˆ*6$N½“IóVšç‚È0!äµ› ŸxY$~€b9 ùòTKElüòÆ>ÅgJAÙ¤‰éؽ²CÕ·“_oú/䏸PIû3_P§꩹ÍÐo(¨]1vÙ‡¤ G5!öoíœPXšè–R`*Q©eæ¿ðƒ(;NtºC%:Þ ßñó}=õáaÃ!ÝàU*®èm‘iìV¢q}]¦>Ø;&/VûåRÓ4ê A-§!·É$ÙÀÔ[ØÜ#ŽÅ‘mñ"ã“ì «K©ñöp¡Bÿ %E 0(K U:s N­ ­ ^ ¯ w» 4¿ Ó â 0Dä b( 0D0 0 bt E| m~ ~ u• • U0                                                                                                   B::::::::::: 0W˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($¡¡,°À`   "CG Times Boldfª,s «Xƒ,‚ ‚ÐHŠ3|x (3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý- ù-(Ã$òòÚ  Ú*Ú  Úóó- ù-ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ kÝ ƒ„Œ_$ÝÔ€X\×XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X\×XXX\×ÔThe€appellant€also€asserts€that€he€has€met€the€prerequisite€forÐ ° Ðapplying€this€exception€by€making€a€good€faith€attempt€to€seekÐ xÈ Ðemergency€appellate€relief€from€the€order.€€òòSeeóó€òòProvidence€IIóó,€820Ð @ ÐF.2d€at€1355.€€The€appellee€disputes€that€the€appellant€has€madeÐ X Ðany€such€good€faith€attempt.€€We€need€not€decide€this€issue€sinceÐ Ð  Ðwe€find€the€exception€inapplicable.<è\( 9Z+Courier  d(J2Œ_$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X\×XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÎJXXXÔÔ€°Öy°XXÎJÔÑ€ÑÑ8€\×XXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ!Ùà@l l ìàUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° ÐÔ€„/ê„°°ÖyÔà@ÀÀ ìàFor€the€First€CircuitˆÐ à ÐÌÔ€„ø^„„„/êÔÔ€X\×X„„ø^ÔßA€y) °°` dE<_ ` AßÐ ` ° ÐÌÌNo.€00„2456Ð ÿ O ÐÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÐ  ß ÐÌà@ÐÐ&ìàAppellee,ˆÐ o  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ ¯ÿ  ÐÌà@,,"ìàALPHONSE€Ô_ÔMOURADÔ_Ô,ˆÐ ?  ÐÌà@ ìàDefendant,€Appellant.ˆÐ Ï ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<&` AßÐ 'w ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ þN ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Reginald€C.€Lindsay,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ n ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<u` AßÐ vÆ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ M ÐÌà@ìàÔ_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,ˆÐ Ý-  ÐÌà@ ìàCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,ˆÐ m½" ÐÌà@ìàand€Ô_ÔLipezÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ˆÐ ý M$ ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dE<T#` AßÐ U#¥' ÐÌÓ  Óà  àòòJoseph€S.€Bermanóó,€with€whom€òòBerman€&€Ô_ÔDowellÔ_Ôóó€was€on€brief,€forÐ ,$|) Ðappellant.Ð ô$D * Ðà  àòòDenise€Jefferson€Casperóó,€Assistant€United€States€Attorney,Ð ¼% !+ Ðwith€whom€òòMichael€J.€Sullivanóó,€United€States€Attorney,€was€onÐ „&Ô!, Ðbrief,€for€appellee.Ð L'œ"- ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dàE<£)` AßÐ ¤)ô$0 ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@$ìàMay€14,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈР{*Ë%2 ÐÌßA€y) °°` d E< ,` AßÐ   ,['4È ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÙ*!ÙÑ8€\×XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òòòPer€Curiamóó.ó ó€Defendant„appellant€Alphonse€Mourad€wasÐ ° Ðconvicted€of€criminal€contempt€for€violating€a€court€order.€€HeÐ à Ðappeals€this€conviction,€claiming€that€the€order€was€void€and€thatÐ  p Ðhis€violation€of€it€was€not€willful.€€Because€we€find€that€theÐ °  Ðorder€was€not€"transparently€invalid,"€was€in€effect€on€the€date€ofÐ @  Ðits€transgression,€and€was€willfully€violated,€we€affirm€theÐ Ð   Ðappellant's€conviction.Ð `°  Ðà@tt)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ ð@  Ðà ` àAlphonse€Mourad€was€the€president,€sole€shareholder,€andÐ Ð  Ðdirector€of€V&M€Management,€Inc.€("V&M"),€which€owned€a€low„incomeÐ `° Ðapartment€complex€in€Roxbury,€Massachusetts.€€On€January€8,€1996,Ð ð@ ÐMourad€filed€for€Chapter€11€bankruptcy€on€behalf€of€V&M.€€DuringÐ €Ð Ðthe€ensuing€litigation€in€the€bankruptcy€court,€the€appellant,€asÐ ` Ða€result€of€his€dissatisfaction€with€certain€legal€rulings,€filedÐ  ð Ða€number€of€motions€requesting€Chief€Judge€Kenner,€the€presidingÐ 0€ Ðjudge,€to€recuse€herself.€€Then,€on€November€5,€1998,€Mourad€filedÐ À Ðan€"Emergency€Motion€to€Be€Imprisoned,€and€To€Go€On€A€Hunger€StrikeÐ P   ÐProtest€Until€Judge€Kenner€Rules€on€Mourad's€Six€Motions€That€HaveÐ à0" ÐBeen€Pending€Since€January€of€1998."€€On€November€13,€1998,€theÐ p!À$ Ðappellant€followed€this€with€an€"Emergency€Motion€Vowing€Not€toÐ #P& ÐLeave€Chief€Justice€Kenner's€Courtroom€and€Be€Arrested€and€Go€On€AÐ $à( ÐHunger€Strike,€Unless€She€(Kenner)€Recognizes€His€(Mourad's)€ClaimsÐ  &p!* Ðand€Sets€Date€to€Hear€His€Motions."€€The€bankruptcy€court€notedÐ °'#, Ðthat€on€both€November€5€and€13,€1998,€the€appellant€"appeared€atÐ @)$. Ðthe€premises€of€this€Court€in€attempts€to€disrupt€Court€business€byÐ Ð* &0 Ðvowing€not€to€leave€the€premises€of€the€Bankruptcy€Court€andÐ `,°'2 Ðcourtrooms,"€which€are€located€on€the€eleventh€floor€of€the€O'NeillÐ ° Ðbuilding€in€Boston,€Massachusetts.Ð @ Ðà ` àIn€response€to€these€disruptive€actions,€on€November€16,Ð Ð  Ð1998,€Chief€Judge€Kenner€issued€an€order€barring€Mourad€"fromÐ ` ° Ðentering€the€Eleventh€Floor€of€the€O'Neill€Building€.€.€.€untilÐ ð @ Ðfurther€order€of€this€Court,"€except€for€a€hearing€scheduled€forÐ € Ð  ÐNovember€30,€1998€in€V&M's€bankruptcy€case.€€A€copy€of€the€orderÐ `  Ðwas€both€personally€served€on€and€mailed€to€the€appellant€onÐ  ð  ÐNovember€16,€1998.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àAfter€entry€of€the€order,€Mourad€repeatedly€expressed€hisÐ À Ðintention€to€violate€it.€€Sometime€after€November€16,€1998,€theÐ P  Ðappellant€telephoned€Deputy€U.S.€Marshal€Stephen€Donaher,€tellingÐ à0 ÐDonaher€that€he€wanted€to€be€arrested€to€attract€media€attentionÐ pÀ Ðfor€his€case.€€Then,€at€the€November€30,€1998€hearing€before€theÐ P Ðbankruptcy€court,€Mourad€told€the€court,€"I€want€to€go€to€prisonÐ à Ðand€stay€there€and€go€on€a€hunger€strike€today,"€and€"I'm€askingÐ  p Ðyou€[the€court]€politely€to€ask€the€U.S.€Marshal€to€take€me€away."€Ð °  ÐOn€December€8,€1998,€the€appellant€telephoned€the€pro€se€clerk€ofÐ @" Ðthe€district€court,€informing€her€that€he€wanted€to€be€taken€intoÐ Ð $ Ðcustody€by€the€U.S.€Marshals.€€Also€in€December,€1998,€MouradÐ `"°& Ðappeared€at€the€security€checkpoint€on€the€eleventh€floor€of€theÐ ð#@( ÐO'Neill€building,€where€he€told€the€security€officers€that€heÐ €%Ð * Ðwanted€to€be€arrested.€€One€of€the€security€officers€persuadedÐ '`", ÐMourad€to€leave.Ð  (ð#. Ðà ` àOn€May€12,€1999,€Mourad,€carrying€a€copy€of€JudgeÐ 0*€%0 ÐKenner's€order,€appeared€at€the€eleventh€floor€security€checkpointÐ À+'2 Ðof€the€O'Neill€building.€€He€informed€the€security€officers€that€heÐ ° Ðwas€there€to€violate€the€order€and€be€arrested.€€Deputy€U.S.Ð @ ÐMarshal€Donaher€led€Mourad€to€a€conference€room€where€he€attemptedÐ Ð  Ðto€convince€Mourad€to€leave.€€After€the€appellant€repeatedlyÐ ` ° Ðrefused,€the€Deputy€Marshal€arrested€him.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àAt€trial€in€the€district€court,€Mourad€testified€that€heÐ € Ð  Ðwas€confused€about€whether€the€order€was€still€in€effect€when€heÐ `  Ðentered€the€eleventh€floor€of€the€O'Neill€building€on€May€12,€1999.€Ð  ð  ÐThe€appellant€further€testified€that€he€entered€the€eleventh€floorÐ 0€  Ðon€that€day€to€determine€whether€another€lawsuit€that€he€had€filedÐ À Ðhad€been€docketed€in€the€bankruptcy€court;€he€denied€any€intent€toÐ P  Ðget€arrested.Ð à0 Ðà ` àThe€trial€judge,€determining€that€the€order€was€notÐ pÀ Ð"patently€unconstitutional,"€precluded€the€appellant€fromÐ P Ðchallenging€the€validity€of€the€order€itself€under€the€collateralÐ à Ðbar€rule.€€Moreover,€the€district€court,€finding€that€the€order€wasÐ  p Ðstill€in€effect€on€May€12,€1999,€and€that€the€defendantÐ °  Ðintentionally€violated€the€order,€convicted€the€appellant€ofÐ @" Ðcriminal€contempt€under€18€U.S.C.€ðð€401(3).Ð Ð $ Ðà@88)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ `"°& Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€Mourad€raises€three€challenges€to€hisÐ @$( Ðconviction.€€First,€he€argues€that€the€district€court€erred€inÐ Ð% !* Ðapplying€the€collateral€bar€rule€to€prevent€him€from€challengingÐ `'°", Ðthe€validity€and€constitutionality€of€the€order.€€Second,€heÐ ð(@$. Ðcontends€that,€contrary€to€the€district€court's€finding,€the€orderÐ €*Ð%0 Ðwas€no€longer€in€effect€at€the€time€of€its€alleged€violation.€Ð ,`'2 ÐThird,€the€appellant€asserts€that€there€was€insufficient€evidenceÐ ° Ðto€support€the€district€court's€finding€that€he€acted€willfully€inÐ @ Ðdisobeying€the€court's€order.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àThis€Court€reviews€a€district€court's€criminal€contemptÐ ` ° Ðfinding€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòWinteróó,€70Ð ð @ ÐF.3d€655,€659€(1st€Cir.€1995).€€Within€this€context,€factualÐ € Ð  Ðfindings€will€be€upheld€unless€there€is€clear€error,€but€legalÐ `  Ðquestions€will€be€reviewed€de€novo.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Keeping€theseÐ  ð  Ðstandards€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€appellant's€allegations€of€error.Ð 0€  Ðà@tt)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ À Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€first€claim€of€error€is€that€the€districtÐ  ð Ðcourt€erroneously€applied€the€collateral€bar€rule€to€his€case.€€TheÐ 0€ Ðcollateral€bar€rule€provides€that€"a€party€may€not€violate€an€orderÐ À Ðand€raise€the€issue€of€its€unconstitutionality€collaterally€as€aÐ P  Ðdefense€in€the€criminal€contempt€proceeding."€€òòIn€re€ProvidenceÐ à0 ÐJournal€Co.óó,€820€F.2d€1342,€1346€(1st€Cir.€1986)€("òòProvidence€Ióó"),Ð pÀ Ðòòmodified€on€reh'g€en€bancóó,€820€F.2d€1354€(1987)€("òòProvidence€IIóó").€Ð P  Ð"Rather,€the€appropriate€method€to€challenge€a€court€order€is€toÐ à" Ðpetition€to€have€the€order€vacated€or€amended."€€òòId.óó€€The€rationaleÐ  !p$ Ðfor€this€rule€is€"both€to€protect€the€authority€of€the€courts€whenÐ °"& Ðthey€address€close€questions€and€to€create€a€strong€incentive€forÐ @$( Ðparties€to€follow€the€orderly€process€of€law."€€òòId.óó€at€1347.€€InÐ Ð% !* Ðshort,€"no€man€can€be€judge€in€his€own€case."€€òòWalkeróó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ `'°", ÐBirminghamóó,€388€U.S.€307,€320€(1967)€(holding€that€petitioners,€whoÐ ð(@$. Ðdeliberately€violated€injunction€without€first€attempting€toÐ €*Ð%0 Ðdissolve€injunction,€were€properly€convicted€of€criminal€contempt).€Ð ,`'2 ÐAlthough€Mourad€acknowledges€the€general€application€of€theÐ ° Ðcollateral€bar€rule,€he€contends€that€an€exception€forÐ @ Ð"transparently€invalid"€orders€prevents€its€application€in€thisÐ Ð  Ðcase.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àUnder€this€exception,€if€an€order€is€"transparentlyÐ ð @ Ðinvalid,"€a€party€may€challenge€the€order's€validity€orÐ € Ð  Ðconstitutionality€as€a€defense€in€a€criminal€contempt€proceeding.€Ð `  ÐòòSeeóó€òòProvidence€Ióó,€820€F.2d€at€1347„48.€€When€an€order€is€clearlyÐ  ð  Ðinvalid,€the€rationale€for€the€collateral€bar€rule€dissolvesÐ 0€  Ðbecause€"in€that€instance€the€court€is€acting€so€far€in€excess€ofÐ À Ðits€authority€that€it€has€no€right€to€expect€compliance€and€noÐ P  Ðinterest€is€protected€by€requiring€compliance."€€òòId.óó€at€1347.€€TheÐ à0 Ðappellant€argues€that€the€order€here€is€transparently€invalid,€soÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€district€court€should€have€allowed€him€to€attack€theÐ P Ðorder's€validity.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à Ðà ` àMourad€points€to€two€factors€to€support€his€position€thatÐ  p Ðthe€order€was€transparently€invalid:€the€order's€unlimited€durationÐ °  Ðand€the€lack€of€procedural€due€process.€€He€notes€that,€although€aÐ @" Ðcourt€has€the€power€to€enjoin€"a€party€from€filing€and€processingÐ Ð $ Ðfrivolous€and€vexations€lawsuits,"€any€such€injunction€must€beÐ `"°& Ðnarrowly€tailored€so€as€not€to€offend€the€individual's€right€ofÐ ð#@( Ðaccess€to€the€courts.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCastroóó,€775€F.2d€399,€408,Ð €%Ð * Ð410€(1st€Cir.€1984)€(per€curiam).€€An€injunction€in€effect€"untilÐ ° Ðfurther€order€of€this€Court,"€Mourad€argues,€is€not€narrowlyÐ @ Ðtailored.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€order€wasÐ Ð  Ðclearly€invalid€because€it€was€issued€without€notice€or€a€hearing,Ð ` ° Ðin€disregard€of€procedural€due€process€requirements.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àUnder€our€precedent,€an€order€should€be€consideredÐ € Ð  Ðtransparently€invalid€only€if€"the€court€reviewing€the€order€findsÐ `  Ðthe€order€to€have€had€[no]€pretence€to€validity€at€the€time€it€wasÐ  ð  Ðissued."€€òòProvidence€Ióó,€820€F.2d€at€1347.€€In€this€case,€we€cannotÐ 0€  Ðsay€that€the€order€is€transparently€invalid€under€either€of€theÐ À Ðappellant's€proffered€theories.Ð P  Ðà ` àThe€Bankruptcy€Code€grants€the€bankruptcy€court€broadÐ à0 Ðauthority€to:Ð pÀ ÐÓÓà8 ` àòòissue€any€orderóó,€process,€or€judgment€that€isÐ P Ðnecessary€or€appropriate€to€carry€out€theÐ È Ðprovisions€of€this€title.€€No€provision€ofÐ à Ðthis€title€.€.€.€shall€be€construed€toÐ X¨ Ðpreclude€the€court€from,€sua€sponte,€takingÐ  p Ðany€action€or€making€any€determinationÐ è8 Ðnecessary€or€appropriate€to€enforce€orÐ °  Ðimplement€court€orders€or€rules,€or€òòto€preventÐ xÈ! Ðan€abuse€of€processóó.Ð@"` x` x ÐÌÓÓ11€U.S.C.€ðð€105(a)€(emphasis€added).€€The€purpose€of€the€bankruptcyÐ Ð $ Ðcourt's€order€excluding€the€appellant€from€the€eleventh€floor€ofÐ `"°& Ðthe€O'Neill€building€was€to€prevent€the€disruption€of€judicialÐ ð#@( Ðproceedings€that€was€threatened€by€Mourad's€behavior.€€Given€thatÐ €%Ð * Ðmore€drastic€orders€have€been€upheld€under€the€bankruptcy€court'sÐ '`", Ððð€105€powers€to€protect€the€orderly€administration€of€justice,Ð  (ð#. ÐChief€Judge€Kenner's€order€seems€to€fall€well€within€the€bankruptcyÐ 0*€%0 Ðcourt's€general€authority,€particularly€since€the€appellant€wasÐ À+'2 Ðstill€able€to€make€filings€and€inquiries€with€the€court€by€mail€orÐ ° Ðtelephone.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€Casseóó,€198€F.3d€327,€339,€341€(2d€Cir.Ð @ Ð1999)€(upholding€power€of€bankruptcy€court€under€ðð€105€to€prohibitÐ Ð  Ð"serial€filer"€from€future€filings€for€extended€time€periods€toÐ ` ° Ðsafeguard€against€abuse€of€the€bankruptcy€process);€òòIn€re€Volpertóó,Ð ð @ Ð110€F.3d€494,€500€(7th€Cir.€1997)€(affirming€bankruptcy€court'sÐ € Ð  Ðpower€to€sanction€party€under€ðð€105€for€"unreasonably€andÐ `  Ðvexatiously"€increasing€the€court's€workload).€€Moreover,€"[t]heÐ  ð  Ðability€to€prevent€the€type€of€behavior€exhibited€in€this€case€isÐ 0€  Ðnecessary€if€the€bankruptcy€courts€are€to€carry€out€efficiently€andÐ À Ðeffectively€the€duties€assigned€to€them€by€Congress"€and€"toÐ P  Ðmaintain€control€of€their€courtrooms€and€of€their€dockets."€€òòIn€reÐ à0 ÐVolpertóó,€110€F.3d€at€500,€501.Ð pÀ Ðà ` àAlthough€the€appellant€does€not€specifically€dispute€theÐ P Ðbankruptcy€court's€general€authority€under€ðð€105,€he€claims€thatÐ à Ðthe€order€is€transparently€invalid€because€its€denial€of€access€toÐ  p Ðthe€court€"apparently€was€effective€in€perpetuity."€€Section€105,Ð °  Ðhowever,€does€not€limit€the€bankruptcy€court's€authority€to€issueÐ @" Ðorders€with€a€set€expiration€date.€€òòSeeóó€11€U.S.C.€ðð€105(a).€€AsÐ Ð $ Ðlong€as€the€order€is€narrowly€tailored€to€curb€the€litigant's€abuseÐ `"°& Ðof€process,€as€this€order€arguably€was,€it€cannot€be€transparentlyÐ ð#@( Ðinvalid.€€òòSeeóó€òòCastroóó,€775€F.2d€at€408„10.Ð €%Ð * Ðà ` àMourad€also€bases€his€claim€of€transparent€invalidity€onÐ '`", Ðthe€lack€of€due€process€because€no€notice€or€hearing€was€providedÐ  (ð#. Ðprior€to€the€order's€issuance.€€Although€a€denial€of€meaningfulÐ 0*€%0 Ðaccess€to€the€courts€may€constitute€a€deprivation€of€a€life,Ð À+'2 Ðliberty,€or€property€interest,€thereby€triggering€due€processÐ ° Ðprotections,€òòseeóó€òòRoganóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€267€F.3d€24,€28€(1st€Cir.Ð @ Ð2001),€that€is€not€the€situation€presented€here.€€The€appellant€wasÐ Ð  Ðonly€barred€from€physically€entering€the€eleventh€floor€of€theÐ ` ° ÐO'Neill€€building.€€Although€this€did€prevent€his€physical€accessÐ ð @ Ðto€the€clerk's€office,€Mourad€was€still€able€to€file€documents€withÐ € Ð  Ðthe€court€either€via€mail€or€by€hand€delivery€to€the€securityÐ `  Ðguards€at€the€entrance€to€the€eleventh€floor.€€The€order€limitedÐ  ð  Ðonly€his€ability€to€be€physically€present€in€the€bankruptcy€court;Ð 0€  Ðit€did€not€deny€him€meaningful€access€to€the€court.€€Therefore,€dueÐ À Ðprocess€protections,€such€as€notice€and€a€hearing,€were€neverÐ P  Ðtriggered.Ð à0 Ðà ` àNeither€rationale€advanced€by€the€appellant€convinces€usÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€bankruptcy€court's€order€had€no€"pretence€to€validity."Ð P ÐòòProvidence€Ióó,€820€F.2d€at€1347.€€As€a€result,€the€district€courtÐ à Ðcorrectly€applied€the€collateral€bar€rule€to€prevent€Mourad€fromÐ  p Ðattacking€the€order's€validity.Ð °  Ðà@tt)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ @" Ðà ` àMourad's€second€challenge€to€his€contempt€conviction€isÐ  !p$ Ðthat€the€order€had€expired€by€the€time€he€allegedly€violated€it.€Ð °"& ÐAs€this€presents€primarily€a€legal€question,€we€review€theÐ @$( Ðappellant's€claim€de€novo.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinteróó,€70€F.3d€at€659.Ð Ð% !* Ðà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that,€on€December€23,€1998,€ChiefÐ `'°", ÐJudge€Kenner€effectively€"closed"€the€bankruptcy€case,€except€forÐ ð(@$. Ðtwo€matters€specifically€excluded,€by€granting€the€Amended€MotionÐ €*Ð%0 Ðfor€Entry€of€Final€Decree€Closing€Bankruptcy€Case.€€Thus,€afterÐ ,`'2 Ðthis€date,€Mourad€contends€that,€with€the€exception€of€those€twoÐ ° Ðmatters,€the€bankruptcy€court€was€relieved€of€jurisdiction€over€theÐ @ Ðcase.€€As€a€result,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€order,€which€didÐ Ð  Ðnot€relate€to€the€excepted€matters,€was€no€longer€in€effect€when€heÐ ` ° Ðentered€the€eleventh€floor€of€the€O'Neill€building€on€May€12,€1999.€Ð ð @ ÐWe€disagree.Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àFirst,€the€December€23,€1998€order€did€not€close€theÐ `  Ðcase,€as€the€appellant€states.€€Rather,€the€order€stated€that€theÐ  ð  Ðcase€would€remain€open€as€to€those€matters€pending€on€appeal€and€asÐ 0€  Ðto€those€matters€which€could€still€be€appealed.€€As€late€asÐ À ÐNovember€10,€1999,€almost€six€months€after€Mourad's€violation€ofÐ P  Ðthe€order,€the€bankruptcy€court€noted€that€there€were€still€pendingÐ à0 Ðmatters€in€the€case€which€prevented€it€from€entering€a€finalÐ pÀ Ðdecree.€€Therefore,€even€in€November€of€1999€the€case€was€not€yetÐ P Ðclosed.Ð à Ðà ` àSecond,€even€if€we€were€to€credit€Mourad's€argument€thatÐ  p Ðthe€bankruptcy€case€was€closed,€the€court€still€would€not€have€lostÐ °  Ðjurisdiction€to€enforce€its€order.€€òòSeeóó€òòKoehleróó€v.€òòGrantóó,€213€B.R.Ð @" Ð567,€569„70€(B.A.P.€8th€Cir.€1997)€(stating€that€"it€is€well„Ð Ð $ Ðestablished€that€courts€retain€jurisdiction€to€enforce€their€ownÐ `"°& Ðorders,"€even€after€the€bankruptcy€court€has€closed€the€case);Ð ð#@( Ðòòaccordóó€òòIn€re€Lemco€Gypsum,€Inc.óó,€910€F.2d€784,€788€(11th€Cir.Ð €%Ð * Ð1990).Ð '`", Ðà ` àThus,€because€the€case€was€not€closed€and€the€bankruptcyÐ  (ð#. Ðcourt€had€continuing€jurisdiction€to€enforce€its€orders,€theÐ 0*€%0 Ðdistrict€court€properly€found€that€Chief€Judge€Kenner's€order€wasÐ À+'2 Ðstill€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€appellant's€entry€onto€theÐ ° Ðeleventh€floor.Ð @ Ðà@tt)ìàò òC.ó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€alternatively€claims€that,€even€if€theÐ °  Ðorder€was€legal€and€in€effect,€there€was€insufficient€evidence€ofÐ @  Ða€willful€violation€of€the€order€to€support€his€conviction.€€ToÐ Ð   Ðconvict€a€defendant€of€criminal€contempt€under€18€U.S.C.€ðð€401(3),Ð `°  Ðthe€government€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÐ ð@  Ðdefendant€willfully€violated€a€lawful€order€of€reasonableÐ €Ð  Ðspecificity.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMichaudóó,€928€F.2d€13,€15€(1stÐ ` ÐCir.€1991)€(per€curiam).€€Mourad€essentially€argues€that€theÐ  ð Ðdistrict€court€erred€in€finding€the€willfulness€element€satisfiedÐ 0€ Ðbecause€there€was€no€evidence€of€Mourad's€intent€on€May€12,€1999€toÐ À Ðviolate€the€order,€particularly€since€he€claims€he€was€unaware€onÐ P  Ðthat€day€of€whether€the€order€was€still€in€effect.€€We€review€theÐ à0 Ðdistrict€court's€factual€findings€for€clear€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòWinteróó,€70Ð pÀ ÐF.3d€at€659.Ð P  Ðà ` àThe€requirement€of€willfulness€contemplates€knowledgeÐ à" Ðthat€one€is€violating€a€court€order.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð  !p$ ÐòòMarquardoóó,€149€F.3d€36,€43€n.4€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð °"& ÐòòThemy„Kotronakisóó,€140€F.3d€858,€864€(10th€Cir.€1998)€(definingÐ @$( Ðwillfulness€as€a€"volitional€act"€committed€with€knowledge€€orÐ Ð% !* Ðawareness€that€it€is€wrongful).€€In€this€case,€there€was€ampleÐ `'°", Ðevidence€to€support€the€district€court's€finding€of€willfulness.Ð ð(@$. Ðà ` àMourad€made€numerous€statements€about€his€intention€to€beÐ €*Ð%0 Ðarrested€for€violation€of€the€order.€At€the€conclusion€of€theÐ ,`'2 Ðbankruptcy€court€hearing€on€November€30,€1998,€the€appellantÐ ° Ðstated,€"I€want€to€go€to€prison€and€stay€there€and€go€on€a€hungerÐ @ Ðstrike€today."€€He€then€indicated€his€wish€to€be€arrested:€"I'mÐ Ð  Ðasking€you€politely€to€ask€the€U.S.€Marshal€to€take€me€away."€Ð ` ° ÐDeputy€U.S.€Marshal€Donaher€provided€the€court€with€an€affidavit,Ð ð @ Ðstating€that€when€the€appellant€arrived€on€the€eleventh€floor€ofÐ € Ð  Ðthe€O'Neill€building€on€May€12,€1999,€he€"inform[ed]€them€that€heÐ `  Ðknew€he€was€not€supposed€to€be€present€in€the€Bankruptcy€Court,"Ð  ð  Ðand€then€told€Donaher,€while€showing€him€a€copy€of€Chief€JudgeÐ 0€  ÐKenner's€order,€that€"he€was€there€to€be€arrested."€€In€addition,Ð À Ðat€the€hearing€before€the€district€court€after€his€arrest,€theÐ P  Ðappellant€stated,€"My€whole€purpose€today€is€to€protest€JudgeÐ à0 ÐKenner's€action,"€and€that€he€wanted€to€stay€in€jail€on€a€hungerÐ pÀ Ðstrike€to€attract€national€attention.€€Based€on€the€districtÐ P Ðcourt's€decision€to€credit€this€and€other€evidence,€we€find€noÐ à Ðclear€error€in€its€finding€that€the€appellant€intentionally€andÐ  p Ðwillfully€violated€Chief€Judge€Kenner's€order.Ð °  Ðà@üü(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ @" Ðà ` àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€appellant'sÐ  !p$ Ðcriminal€contempt€conviction€for€violation€of€the€bankruptcyÐ °"& Ðcourt's€order.Ð @$( Ðà ` àò òòòAffirmedóó.ó óÐ Ð% !* Ð