630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)). “A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in. assessing fees.” Id. at 50, 111 S.Ct. 2123. Here, the district court complied with due process because it ordered Wilson to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for disregarding previous orders, allowed Wilson to file a response, and held a hearing before sanctioning Wilson. See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 968 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir.1992) (“[Due process] requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”); see also Hazeur v. Keller Indus., No. 92-3488, 1993 WL 14973, at *6 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). “In order to impose sanctions against an
holding that due process rights were not violated by the district court failing to expressly articulate that it was imposing sanctions pursuant to its inherent power holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties holding courts have inherent power to compel discovery of the states evidence to protect a defendants due process rights holding that adequate notice was given where the court expressed its suspicions of the disputed conduct prior to imposing sanctions even though the court failed to specify in advance that its inherent power would be the basis for the sanctions