United States v. Peter Pocklington

ORDER

Peter Pocklington filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment, which permits such an award to a prevailing party in a criminal case where the court “finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that special circumstances make such an award unjust.” Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997) (reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A historical and statutory notes). In Poeklington’s appeal, we reversed and vacated Pocklington’s probation revocation and sentence on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3564 (d), 3565(c), to revoke probation after the probation had expired. United States v. Pocklington, 792 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015). Assuming this outcome is construed as a decision on the merits in favor of Pocklington — an issue the government disputes — attorney’s fees are not warranted because the government’s position was not “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.”

In assessing the nature of the government’s position, the three components of the statute are “disjunctive; thus, the defendant need only prove one of the three elements to recover.”…