UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOYCE M. GRIGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 2001-01-31
No. 98-8882
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.
240 F.3d 974 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Attorney Joyce M. Griggs appeals the district court’s order compelling Griggs to reimburse the Criminal Justice Act fund pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f) for fees she received from a client.

The court concluded that the fees should be used to cover the fees and expenses of the client’s former court-appointed lawyer. Griggs presents a number of issues on this appeal.

However, we cannot reach the merits of Griggs’s appeal because we lack jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court has jurisdiction over appeals of the final decisions of district courts. In United States v. Rodriguez, we concluded that fee determinations made by district courts pursuant to the § 3006A(d) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) were administrative in nature and therefore not subject to appeal as final decisions. See 833 F. 2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1987).

In reaching that conclusion, we noted that the CJA makes no. provision for appeal of fee determinations; district courts are vested with discretion to set the amounts; fee determinations are made in an administrative setting rather than in an adversarial posture; awards of fees are not dependent upon the outcome of the case; and the CJA does not require a court to hold adversary hearings on fee awards. See id. at 1537-38. The factors recognized in Rodriguez are also present when a district court orders the payment of funds under § 3006A(f).

As with fee determinations, payment orders under § 3006A(f) are not made ap-pealable by the CJA, are left to the discretion of the trial judge, are made in an administrative setting, are unrelated to the outcome of the case, and can be made without prior adversary hearings. We therefore conclude that § 3006A(f) payment orders, like § 3006A(d) fee determinations, are not appealable final orders under § 1291.

Accordingly, Grigg’s appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Owen, 963 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 2020)
    …1 Under the CJA, we have limited jurisdiction to review a district court’s payment order directing that funds available to a defendant be paid to the Treasury to reimburse the fees and expenses of an appointed attorney. See United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir. 2001). In Griggs, a criminal defendant who had been represented by a court-appointed lawyer retained an attorney to represent him in his criminal proceedings. Id. The district court later ordered, under § 3006A(f), that the retained…
  • United States v. Fredrico Pacheo-Romero, 995 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2021)
    …o the court's registry or directing a court clerk to pay money from the registry to cover the cost of appointed counsel—are administrative, not judicial, in nature, we generally lack jurisdiction under § 1291 to review them. United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir. 2001); see United States v. Owen, 963 F.3d 1040, 1053 (11th Cir. 2020). There is one exception to this rule, however. We may review district court orders under § 3006A(f) to ensure that the "district court complied with the procedur…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw