Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-08003/USCOURTS-ca8-07-08003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Respondent
Richard Scott Rhinehart
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-8003

___________

Richard Scott Rhinehart, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Extraordinary Writ

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2007

Filed: March 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a member of the Iowa Bar and admitted to practice before this court,

was appointed by the United States District Court under the Criminal Justice Act

(CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, to represent one Jesse John Wendelsdorf. Following the

completion of his duties of representation, plaintiff filed a CJA voucher claiming

payment for the services rendered.

Plaintiff states that the amount claimed was “summarily, arbitrarily, and

unilaterally cut without notice, hearing, justification or explanation” by the Chief

Judge of the Circuit, the Honorable James B. Loken. Plaintiff has filed what he has

styled “Motion for Hearing on CJA Fees,” asking that the court schedule a hearing on

Appellate Case: 07-8003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286441
-2-

the motion, to be followed by a review process along with an independent decision by

an unbiased arbitrator, following which plaintiff is to be restored to the legal fees to

which he is entitled.

We conclude that, for the reasons set forth in United States v. Johnson, 391 F.3d

946 (8th Cir. 2004), we are without jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion. The

chief judge’s role under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3) is to rule upon requests for waiver

of the maximum amounts of compensation set forth in § 3006A(d)(2). As we held in

Johnson, “The role of the chief judge therefore relates to the management of funds,

and the decision to approve a recommendation for excess funds is entirely his

responsibility, not that of an appellate panel.” 391 F.3d at 948. We conclude that the

holding in Johnson applies with equal force to plaintiff’s motion. See also United

States v. Obasi, 435 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2006).

The motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-8003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286441