USA v. Howard
This text of USA v. Howard (USA v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USA v. Howard CR-92-74-1-SD 08/28/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 92-74-1-SD
Charles Howard III
O R D E R
Attorney Kenneth P. Glidden has filed his voucher seeking
payment for legal services rendered in the course of his
representation of Charles H. Howard III, who, following waiver of
indictment, entered a plea to an information and was thereafter
sentenced thereon. Such services were rendered pursuant to
appointment under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A
(CJA).
As recomputed for mathematical errors,1 the voucher seeks
reimbursement for fees and expenses in the total sum of
$5,311.57, which sum is in excess of the amount authorized under
the Plan adopted in this court in accordance with the mandates of
CJA. Thereunder, the hourly rates may not exceed $60 per hour
1The error occurred in the computation of the actual "in court" hours spent. The time records of the court for those hearings mandate that they be reduced from 4.3 hours to 1.7 hours. for time expended in court and $40 per hour for time expended out
of court, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1), together with reasonably
incurred expenses. Id. Additionally, the maximum amount "shall
not exceed $3,500 for each attorney in a case in which one or
more felonies are charged." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2).
Payment in excess of these maximums "may be made for
extended or complex representation when the court in which the
representation was rendered . . . certifies that the amount of
excess payments is necessary to provide fair compensation and the
payment is approved by the chief judge of the circuit." 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3). The fees and expenses here sought are for
the period between September 16, 1992, and September 30, 1993.
Admitted to the bar in 1988, Attorney Glidden seeks compensation
for 1.7 hours of "in court" time, see supra note 1, and 119 hours
of "out of court" time, or a total of $4,760, for services, plus
$449.57 of expenses,2 for a grand total of $5,311.57.
In this case, the efforts of Attorney Glidden were of high
professional guality in that, in this pre-Sentencing Guidelines
case, he marshalled an impressive array of witnesses at
sentencing, whose testimony was seriously considered by the
2Unlike the statutory limitation on the total of fees (here, $3,500), there is no limitation on the authority of the court to approve the reimbursement of expenses of counsel. Volume VII, G u ide to J u d i c i a r y P o l i c i e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s (Appointment of Counsel in Criminal Cases), at 16.
2 court. However, the court does not believe that this is a case
which warrants payment in excess of the maximum for extended or
complex representation of Mr. Howard.3
As "only reasonably productive time is deserving of
recompense" under CJA, United States v. Carnevale, 624 F. Supp.
381, 384 (D.R.I. 1985), the court believes that review of the
documentation indicates that full recompense at the maximum
hourly rates of CJA would be excessive in consideration of the
overall nature of these proceedings. The options available to it
are reduction of the total hours or reduction of the hourly rate,
and the court believes that the latter course is the one to be
followed.
The court has no guarrel with the 1.7 hours of "in court"
time for which it feels counsel should be compensated at the $60
per hour maximum rate, for a total of $102. The court finds also
that the 22.8 hours of interviews and conferences should be
compensated for at the maximum hourly rate of $40, for a total of
$912. For the 14.8 hours of obtaining and reviewing records, the
court will allow compensation at $30 per hour, for a total of
$444. For the 23.7 hours of legal research and brief writing.
3In an earlier order of April 4, 1994, the court found that such services were of assistance to Mr. Howard in Mr. Glidden's earlier representation of the defendant as a grand jury target. Certification was accordingly had.
3 the court allows an hourly rate of $25, for a total of $592.50.
The court allows $20 per hour for the 49.7 hours of investigative
and other work, for a total of $994, and, finally, the court
allows $15 per hour for the 8 hours of travel time, or the sum of
$120 .
The grand total of the foregoing computation is $3,164.50
for legal services, to which must be added the reasonably
incurred expenses for travel of $109 plus other (toll calls,
$161.55; telecopies, $51.29; and Westlaw, $127.73) expenses of
$340.57, for a grand total of $3,614.07.
The court, with commendation of Attorney Glidden for his
diligent and competent representation of Mr. Howard, hereby
approves payment on his voucher of the total sum of $3,614.07.
SO ORDERED.
Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court
August 28, 1995
cc: US Attorney Kenneth P. Glidden, Esg.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
USA v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usa-v-howard-nhd-1995.