FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT Marc h 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1432 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00251 -CR- J-25-MCR
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us GEORGE CHANDL ER, JEROM E PEARL,
Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 31, 200 8)Honora ble Edwa rd Korma n, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w * York, sitting by

desig nation. 2 Before BIRC H and BARKET T, Circuit Judges, and KO RMA N, District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: Ge orge Chandler and Jerom e Pe arl appeal f rom a j udgm ent of the United State s District Court f

or the Middle District of Florida, deny ing their m otion s for an aw ard of a tto rn ey ’ s fe es an d cost s, pur suant to the H y de A m en dm en t, P ub. L
. N o. 105 -1 19, § 61 7, 111 S ta t. 244 0, 251 9 ( 1997 ) (r ep ri nte d in18 U
. S. C. § 30 06, his to rical and statut or y not es ). T his statut e co nf er s di sc re tio n ona dis tr ic t j udge in a cr im ina l c as e t o “ aw ar d[ ] a p re v ai l i n g p ar t y, o t h er t h an t h e Un i t ed St at es , a re as o n ab l e a t t o rn ey’s fee and other litigatio n expenses, wher e the court finds that the posit ion of the United States w as vexati o u s , frivo lous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that sp ecial ci rcu m st an ces m ak e su ch an awardun jus t.” Id
. Ch an dle r an d Pe ar l w er e both fo und gui lty of a sin gle co unt of an in dic tm en t ch ar gin g th em w ith co nspi ra cy to com m it m ai l f ra ud. T he j udgm en ts o f co nvi ct ion entered on the j ury

verdict w ere reverse d on appeal because the evidence wa s ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh tha t the de fe ndants w er e gui lty of m ai l f ra ud and b ec au se the
ev ide nc e es ta

bli she d th e ex ist en ce of

m ult ipl e co nspi ra ci es r athe r than the sin gle
ove rar ch ing c onsp ir ac y

a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ch an dle r, 3883

F. 3d 796 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , s ub s t i tu t e do n r e h ’ g f o r U n i t e dS t a t e s v . C h a n d l e r , 376 F. 3d 13 03 (1 1thCi r. 200 4)
. Am oti on f or an aw ar d of

a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and c ost s fo ll owe d. The ap pl ic at io n was de ni edby the di st ric t ju dg e who pre si de d o ve r th e tr ia l. Sp ec if ic al ly , he f

ound that the pr ose cu tio n f

or c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it m ai l f ra ud,
w ithw hic h C handl er

and P earl ha d be enc harg ed , “ w as not don e in b ad

f ai th, but rather w ith an hon est purpose, and wa s certainly not the conscio us doi ng of a
w ro ng, ” an d th at

“ thi s pr ose cu tio n w as not f ri vol ous, and w as in no w ay br ough t to annoyor em

barrass the D efendants.” Record E xcerpts Ex. D at 2. The district jud ge co nt in ue d t ha t, while the E leventh Circuit has determ ined that the go vernm ent failed to p ro ve . . . the sin gle m ai l f ra ud c onsp ir ac y , thi s C ourt f ind s th at the pr ose cu tio n it se lf

w as ba se d onr ea sona

ble or pr oba ble c au se . Whil e ult im at el y

r ej ec te d, the gov er

nm en t’ s th eo ry

of the c as e ce nte re d on ea chof the D ef en dants f ra udul en tly r ep re se nti ng the m se lve s to McD onald’s as “ legitim ate w inners” when they in fact knewthey w er e not . Id
. T his the or

y , the dis tr ic t j udge c onc lud ed , gave the gov er nm en t “ a re as ona

ble ba si s t o p ur su e th is pro se cu ti on .” Id
. As we h el d i n Un it edSta te s v . Gil be rt, 1 98 F.3d12 93 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ),
w e re vie wde nia l of

an aw ar d un de r the H y de A m en dm en t un de r anabuse of dis cr et ionstandard
. I d. a t 12 98. “ A n a buse of dis cr et ionoc curs if

the j udge f

ai ls4

to a ppl y the pr ope r le ga l st an dard or to fo llo wpr ope r pr oc ed

ur es in m ak ing the de te rm inatio n, or

ba se s an aw ar d [ or

ade nia l] upo n f

ind ing s of

f ac t tha t are c le ar ly
er ro ne ous. ” I d. ( int er

na l c itatio n and quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). U nde r the f ac ts and circum stances presented in this case we cannot conclud e that the district court ab use d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing the m oti ons of r el ie f pur suant t o th e H y de Am endm ent. A ccordingly , w e AFFIRM
.