US V. Jiminez

2001 DNH 034

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 16, 2001
• Docket: CR-99-131-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

US V. Jiminez CR-99-131-M 02/16/01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America, Plaintiff

v. Criminal No. 99-131-1-M Opinion No. 2001 DNH 034 Pedro Jiminez, Defendant

O R D E R

Motions to exceed fee limits established by the Criminal

Justice Act often require competing valid interests to be

balanced. This is such a case.

Attorney Pendleton provided excellent representation in this

case - well above the norm. He obviously worked hard in

negotiating a plea and preparing for sentencing, to include

drafting a quality legal memorandum and obtaining and presenting

relevant expert and other evidence. His client suffered from

mental disadvantages and no doubt required more than the usual

amount of attention and time. And, counsel's efforts proved to

be of practical value to his client. All of which militate in favor of approving full compensation at the prescribed hourly

rate for all hours worked.

On the other hand. Congress and the courts have made clear

that the purpose of the CJA is not to provide full compensation

for panel attorneys who volunteer to provide indigent defendants

with legal representation. See e.g.. United States v. Carnevale,

624 F.Supp. 381 (D.R.I. 1985). The controlling issue in

resolving an excess fee application is not whether counsel did

the work claimed, whether the work was reasonably necessary, or

whether he or she performed admirably. Rather, the issue is

whether the representation was so "complex or extended," within

the meaning of the Act, such that fees in excess of the limits

established by Congress should be approved and certified to the

Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, to insure "fair"

compensation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2). In determining "fair"

(not full) compensation, a court must consider such factors as

the character and complexity of the work, the responsibilities

involved, the nature of counsel's practice and imposition on it,

any extraordinary circumstances like time pressure or voluminous

2 discovery, and the productivity or efficiency of the

representation. United States v. Carnevale, supra.

"The burden rests with the applicant to 'provide sufficient

details to support the premises that the representation was

indeed extended or complex and that the excess is essential to

fairness of the remuneration.'" Id., at 385 (citations omitted).

This case was modestly complicated by defendant's mental capacity

issues, but otherwise was fairly straight-forward as drug

prosecutions go. There were no extraordinary time pressures, or

particularly voluminous discovery to master, and, while counsel

can only be applauded for identifying and carefully developing

every potentially relevant issue, a substantial portion of that

work was not critical to the favorable result obtained. This is

more like a standard case very well handled, than a complex or

extended case that reguired unusual or extraordinary effort.

However, some amount in excess of the limit is warranted,

due to the modest complexities and extended time reguirements

occasioned by defendant's mental functioning problems, and

counsel's having to perform extensive investigative and

preparatory work to develop a viable diminished mental capacity

3 (and related grounds) claim and prepare a credible departure

argument. An accurate adjustment of the excess fee application

cannot be made with precision, and some subjectivity necessarily

colors every assessment of what is reguired to insure fairness.

But, taking the case and representation provided into account,

along with the factors discussed above, I find that a total fee

in the amount of $6,700, plus expenses as claimed, will provide

fair compensation, and that fees in excess of the CJA limit

necessary to reach that amount should be and are hereby approved

and certified to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2). Defendant's motion to exceed (document no.

24) is granted in part and denied in part.

Again, that counsel provided first rate legal representation

in this case is to his personal and professional credit. This

ruling, approving only part of the reguested payment, is by no

means critical of that admirable effort, but merely reflects that

the Act's prereguisites for approval of excess fees cannot be met

for the balance.

4 SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

February 16 , 2001

cc: John T . Pendleton, Esq.