Panozzo

MEMORANDUM *

This is an appeal from an order denying attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA for an abuse of discretion. Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 856 (9th Cir.2002). In particular, we review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s conclusion that the government’s position was substantially justified. Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 123 F.3d 1275 , 1278, amended by 131 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.1997). The district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law or bases its conclusion on a clearly erroneous finding of fact. *793 United States v. Tucor Int’l, Inc., 238 F.3d 1171 , 1175 (9th Cir.2001).

The EAJA provides that when a private claimant succeeds in a civil action against the United States, the claimant is entitled to attorney’s fees unless the court finds that the government’s position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). The government has the burden to show that its conduct was substantially justified at each state of the proceedings.…