Legal Opinion
United States v. David T. Braunstein
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 25, 2002No. 00-10505PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant David T. Braunstein (“Braun-stein”) appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Braunstein asserts that he incurred approximately $200,000 in attorney’s fees defending against sixteen federal criminal charges of wire fraud, interstate transportation of goods obtained by fraud, and money laundering. He claims that under the Hyde Amendment, the government is required to pay his attorney’s fees because the prosecution was “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.” We have…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chapman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. GilbertCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- United States v. SherburneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- United States of America v. James Truesdale Ronald HamiltonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- United States v. William Dennis Danielson v. United States v. William Dennis DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- In Re Special Grand Jury 89-2Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Donald HeavrinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- 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
- United States v. Brian CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.