Legal Opinion
United States v. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided October 6, 1980No. Nos. 79-2160, 79-2161, 79-2244, 79-2068 and 80-1054PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CROWLEY, District Judge.
Three court-appointed counsel appeal from determinations of the district courts’ disallowing compensation in excess of the maximum amount fixed by the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2). In each of the cases, the district court refused to certify that the representation was “extended or complex” and that excess fees were “necessary to provide fair compensation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3).
The issue is whether those determinations are orders reviewable in this Court. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that they are not.
Mark Rogers was appointed to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Roberts v. United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Brooks v. LawsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1953
- United States v. ThompsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1973
- United States v. Nicholas D'andrea, Jack Ware and Nelson HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- K. Kay Shearin v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Don C. Davis, United States of America v. Daniel M. BurkeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. GonzalesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- In Re the Matter of Attorney's Fees and Expenses of Appointed Counsel, Nancy Ann Baker, United States of America v. Anita J. WaltonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Glen McCullah Willard Petrey, James Tankersley, and Ewell ScottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.