Legal Opinion

United States v. Peter Pocklington

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 4, 2016No. 13-50461PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. GilbertCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
  2. United States v. Dante Vargas-AmayaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  3. United States v. MaddenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  4. United States v. Manchester Farming Partnership, United States of America v. Lone Pine Land, Inc., United States of America v. Priest Butte Farm, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. United States v. Thomas James GarrettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. Wynona MixonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. Yongda Huang Harris v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019
  3. Yongda Huang Harris v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API