Hristov

MEMORANDUM **

This case concerns the government’s prosecution of Zlatko Hristov for marriage fraud in violation of United States laws, and Hristov’s post-acquittal request for attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment, Pub.L. No. 105-119, Title VI, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440 , 2159, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Statutory Notes. In a separate opinion we address the question of law presented by Hristov’s incomplete motion for attorney’s fees. In this memorandum disposition, we affirm the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees on the merits.

We review the district court’s decision to deny fees under the Hyde Amendment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054, 1076 (9th Cir.2003). In order to be awarded fees under the Hyde Amendment, Hristov must prove that the government’s prosecution was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. See United States v. Manchester Farming P’ship, 315 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Hristov could not make these showings.

Some of the allegations in Hristov’s motion involve minor contradictions in witness testimony. These may have led to Hristov’s acquittal,…