Curtin
United States v. Curtin
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Defendants-Appellants, Robert Curtin and John Wallace (“defendants”), are Border Patrol agents who were indicted and tried in federal district court for civil rights violations after they used force on a suspected immigrant smuggler while he was detained in a cell. After the jury acquitted defendants of the charges, they moved, pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, note, to recover their attorneys’ fees. The district court denied the motions, finding that the government’s case had been weak, but not frivolous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for attorneys’ fees under the Hyde Amendment for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Manchester Farming P’ship, 315 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir.), as amended by 326 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2003). Under the abuse of discretion standard, “[rjeversal is warranted only if we find with ‘a firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Sherburne, 249 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Lindberg, 220 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2000))).