### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T JU N E 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14057 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 8 - 0 0 3 0 2 - C R - T - 2 4 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , ve r s us A N D R E P E A S E , a. k. a. M agi c D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 04- 14092 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 8 - 0 0 3 0 2 - C R - T - 2 4 E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , ve r s us B E V E R L Y R E E D Y , L A S H A U N D A F O S T E R , L A T O Y A P E A S E , I n te r e s te d - P a r ty - A p p e lla n ts .Pease did not objec t to the entry of the POF . 1 2

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( J une 16, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In th ese co n so l i d at ed ap p eal s, A n d re P ease (“P ease”), B ev erl y R eed y, L a t oy a P e a s e ( “ L a t oy a ” ) , a nd L a s ha unda F os t e r , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l the di stri ctcourt ’ s order s denyi ng them att orney’ s f ee s a nd cost s pursuantt o E qu al A c c e s s t o J us t i c e A c t( E A J A ) , 28 U . S . C . § 2412, a nd the H y de A m e ndm e nt , P ub. L . No . 1 0 5 - 1 1 9 , 1 1 1 S t a t . 2 4 4 0 , 2 5 1 9 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( r e p r i n t e d i n 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 0 0 6 A, hi st ori ca l and st atut ory not es ). I n 1998, pur s ua ntt o apl e a a gr e e m e nti n w hi c h he a gr e e d t o f or f e i tt o the U n ite d S ta te s h is in te r e s t in c e r ta in r e a l a n dp e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty , P e a s e p le d g u ilty to c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. §§ 841( a ) ( 1) & 846. A f t e rthe pl e aw a s e nt e r e d, butbe f or e s e nt e nc i ng, upon the G ov ernm ent ’ s r equest , the courtgrant ed the G ov ernm ent ’ s app l i ca t i on for a pr e l i m i na ry or de rof

f or f e i tur e ( “ P O F ” ) pur s ua ntt o R ul e 32 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e . Ats e n t e n c i n g , h o we v e r , th e c o u r tf a i l e d t o m a k e th e P OF 13

pa r tof i t s j udgm e nt . W e a f

f i rm e d P e a s e ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e on M a r c h 1, 2 0 0 1 . U n ite d S ta te s v . P e a s e , 2 4 0 F .3 d 9 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .2 0 0 1 ) ( “P e a s e I ” ) . W hi l e P e a s e ’ s appe a l w a s pe ndi ng, the G ove rnm e nt , dr a w i ng on the P O F f or i t s autho ri ty, pu bl i shed a not i ce i nform i ng thi rd part i es thatthe prop erty des cr i bed i n the P O F ha d be e n f

or f e i t e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd of the i rr i ghtt o pe t i t i on the d is tr ic t c o u r t p u r s u a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 3 ( n ) ( 2 ) , ( 6 ) f o ra d e c la r a tio n th a t th e y h e ld an i nt er es ti n such p roperty a nd thatthei r i nt er es tw as superi or t o P ea se ’ s f orfe i t ed i nt er es t . O n S ept em ber 27, 19 99 , P ea se , cl ai m i ng an i nt er es ti n three i t em s l i st ed i n the P O F , a l s o f

i l e d a§ 853( n) ( 2) pe t i t i on. T he G ove rnm e ntm ove d t o s tr i ke P e a s e ’ s pe t i t i on on the gr ound tha t§ 853( n) ( 2) pr ohi bi t s a c onvi c t e d de f e nda nt fro m cl ai m i n g an i n t eresti n fo rfei t ed p ro p erty. O n th e sam e d ay, L at o ya, R eed y, a nd F os t e r( P e a s e ’ s s i s t e r , m othe r , a nd gi r l f r i e nd, r e s pe c t i ve l y ) f

i l e d § 853( n) ( 2) p e titio n s w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, c la im in g a n in te r e s t in s o m e o f th e p r o p e r ty d e s c r ib e d in th e P O F . I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 , w h ile th e s e p e titio n s a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t's m o tio n to stri ke them w er e pendi ng , P ea se m ov ed the di stri ctcourtt o d i sm i ss the anci l l ary pr oc e e di ng. H e c ont e nde d tha tbe c a us e the j udgm e nti n hi s c r i m i na l c a s e di d not i nc l ude af

i na l or de rof

f or f e i tur e , the c our tl a c ke d a uthor i ty t o e nt e r t a i n a § 853( n) a n c illa ry p r o c e e d in g . L a to y a , R e e d y , a n d F o s te rs u b s e q u e n tly m o v e d th e c o u r t to4

di s m i s s the a nc i l l a ry pr oc e e di ng on the s a m e gr ound. I n r e s pons e , the G ove rnm e nt m ove d t o c orr e c tthe j udgm e nti n P e a s e ’ s c r i m i na l c a s e pur s ua ntt o R ul e 36 of the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re , w hi ch autho ri ze s adi stri ctcourtt o correc t c le r ic a l m is ta k e s in ju d g m e n ts . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge ( t o w hom the di s tr i c tc our tr e f e rr e d the m a tt e r ) , i n a r e por tt o the di s tr i c tc our t , c onc l ude d tha tL a t oy aa nd R e e dy ha d f a i l e d t o c a rry the bur de n of

pr oof pr e s c r i be d by § 853( n) ( 6) a nd tha tthe s t a tut e ba rr e d P e a s e f r om c la im in g h is in te r e s t in th e f o r f e ite d p r o p e r ty . O n J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 0 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, a dopt i ng the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ' s c onc l us i ons , e nt e r e d a n or de ra m e ndi ng the j udgm e nti n P e a s e ’ s c r i m i na l c a s e , de ny i ng the pe t i t i one r s ' c l a i m s , a nd gr a nt i ng the G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to s tr ik e P e a s e ’s c la im . P ea se , R ee dy, and L at oya app ea l ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s order . W e a cc ept ed the appeal on l y a s t o R ee dy and L at oya, and con cl ud ed thatP ea se ’ s pet i t i on w as ba rr e d by § 853( n) ( 2) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e a s e , 331 F . 3d 809, 811 ( 11th C i r . 2003) (her ea ft erP ea se II ). W e det erm i ned that(1) the G ov ernm entnever ac qu i re d P ea se ’ s i nt er es ti n any of the prop ert i es because the forf ei ture had no tbeen i ncl ud ed i n the j ud gm enti n P ea se ’ s c ri m i nal ca se , and (2) the di stri ctcourt m i s us e d R ul e 36 t o m odi f y the j udgm e ntbe c a us e the a l t e r a t i on of the j udgm e nt w a s s u b s ta n tia l. W e r e v e r s e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e ra n d r e m a n d e d th e c a s e w ith5

i nstruct i on s thatthe di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss the anci l l ary proce edi ng for l ac k o f a n o r d e ro f f o r f e itu r e . In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , R ee d y, L ato ya , an d F o sterfiled a jo in t m o ti o n fo r a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s a nd c os t s pur s ua ntt o E A J A , 28 U . S . C . § 2412( d) ( 1) ( B ) . P e a s e a nd the cl ai m ant s f

i l ed a j oi ntm ot i on t o d i sm i ss the ac t i on , for r eturn o f the prop erty l i st ed i n the P O F , a nd f

orda m a ge s s t e m m i ng f

r om the “ w r ongf

ul s e i z ur e ” of

the p r o p e r tie s . P e a s e a ls o m o v e d th e c o u r t to g r a n t h im a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a n d c o s ts p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . P e a s e a ls o c la im e d th a t h e w a s e n title d to such fe es and exp ense s und er§ 2 41 2 throu gh the H yde A m endm ent . T he di stri ct c our tdi s m i s s e d the a nc i l l a ry pr oc e e di ng, de ni e d the c l a i m a nt s ’ s m ot i ons f or a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s , a nd a w a r de d c os t s i n the a m ountof $40. T he c l a i m a ntnow ap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d en yi n g th em att o rn ey’ s fees an d co st s. R e e d y , F o s te r , a n d L a to y ac o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g th ei r m o t i o n fo r att o rn ey’ s fees an d co st s u n d er E A JA be c a us e the G ove rnm e nt ’ s pur s ui tof the f or f e i tur e of P e a s e ’ s pr ope r ty w a s not subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed. T he cl ai m ant s a ss ertthatatthe t i m e the G ov ernm entm ov ed the di stri ctcourtpu rs uantt o R ul e 36 t o corre ctthe j ud gm enti n P ea se ’ s c ri m i nal ca se t o i ncl ud e the om i tt ed forf ei ture order, i tkn ew thatR ul e 36 w as no ta proper ve hi c l e t o c orr e c ttha tj udgm e nt . P e a s e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by6

de ny i ng hi m r e i m bur s e m e ntf ora tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd c os t s unde rthe H y de A m e ndm e nt . H e s ubm i t s tha the w a s a pr e va i l i ng pa r ty on the i s s ue of the G ove rnm e nt ’ s m i s us e of R ul e 36 a s a m e thod f

orc orr e c t i ng the om i s s i on of the f or f e i tur e f r om the j udgm e nt . H e s a y s tha tthe G ove rnm e nt ’ s a c t i on i n s e e ki ng f or f e i tur e w a s ve xa t i ous , f

r i vol ous , a nd i n ba d f

a i th. R e e dy c ont e nds tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ile d to a d d r e s s h e rc la im to th e r e a l p r o p e r ty o n D ap h n e D r iv e . I . F o s t e r ’ s E A J A c la im A pl a i nt i f

f s e e ki ng t o i nvoke a f

e de r a l c our t ' s j ur i s di c t i on be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng s t a ndi ng. L uj a n v. D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 504 U . S . 555, 561, 112 S . C t . 21 30 , 21 36 , 11 9 L . E d. 2d 35 1 (19 92 ). A rt i cl e I II of the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on re qu i re s “ the party w ho i nv ok es the court ' s autho ri ty t o ‘ show that [ s ] he pe r s ona l l y ha s s uf f e r e d s om e a c tua l orthr e a t e ne d i nj ury a s a r e s ul tof the pu t at i vel y i l l egal cond uctof the defendant , ’ and thatthe i nj ury ‘ fa i rl y c an be tra ce d t o the chal l enged act i on ’ and ‘ i s l i kel y t o b e r edre ss ed by a f avorabl e dec i si on . ’ ” V a l l e y F or ge C hr i s t i a n C ol l e ge v. A m e r i c a ns U ni t e d f orS e pa r a t i on of

C hur c h a nd S t a t e , 454 U . S . 464, 472, 102 S . C t . 752, 758, 70 L . E d. 2d 700 ( 1982) ( c i t a t i ons o m i tt ed ). “ Iti s w el l est ab l i sh ed th ati n o rd er t o co n t esta fo rfei tu re, a cl ai m an tfi rst m ustdem on stra t e asuff i ci enti nt er es ti n the prop erty t o g i ve hi m A rt i cl e I II st andi ng ; otherw i se , there i s no ‘ ca se or controvers y, ’ i n the const i tut i on al se nse,7

capabl e of a dj ud i ca t i on i n the fe dera l court s. ” U ni t ed S t at es . v. $3 8, 00 0. 00 D ol l ar s i n U . S . C urre ncy, 81 6 F . 2d 15 38 , 15 43 (11th C i r. 19 87 )( ci vi l forf ei ture c as e) . T he re cord revea l s thatF ost erw i thd re w her c l ai m fr om the anci l l ary proceedi ng and there fore i s notabl e t o d em on stra t e a n i nt er es ti n any prop erty that w as the subj ec tof the forf ei ture c ou nti n P ea se ’ s c ri m i nal ca se . M oreover, she w as notapa r ty i n the appe a l of the a nc i l l a ry pr oc e e di ng i n P e a s e I I . A c c or di ngl y , s he l ack s st an d i n g t o m o v e fo r att o rn ey’ s fees an d co st s. I I . P e a s e ’ s E A J A c la im 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 3 (n )(2 ) st at es: A n y p e r s o n , o t he r t ha n t he de f e nda nt , a s s e r tin g a le g a l in te r e s t in prop erty w hi ch has been ordere d forfe i t ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es pur s ua ntt o thi s s e c t i on m a y , w i thi n thi r ty da y s of the f i na l publ i c a t i on o f n o tic e o rh is r e c e ip t o f

n o tic e u n d e rp a r a g r ap h ( 1 ) , w h ic h e v e ris e a r lie r , p e titio n th e c o u r t f o ra h e a r in g to a d

ju d ic a te th e v a lid ity o f

h is a l l e ge d i nt e r e s ti n the pr ope r ty . T he he a r i ng s ha l l be he l d be f or e the co u rtal o n e, w i th o u ta j u ry. S ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 3 (n )(2 )(em p h asi s ad d ed ). In rel ev an tp art , § 2 4 1 2 p ro v i d es: E x c e p t a s o th e rw is e s p e c if ic a lly p r o v id e d b y s ta tu te , ac o u rt s h a ll aw ar d t o a prevai l i ng party other than the U ni t ed S t at es fe es and o ther expenses , i n add i t i on t o any cost s a w ar ded p ursuantt o sub se ct i on (a ), i nc urr e d by tha tpa r ty i n a ny c i v i la c t i o n ( o th e rth a n c a s e s s o u n d in g in t or t ) , i nc l udi ng pr oc e e di ngs f orj udi c i a l r e vi e w of

a ge nc y a c t i on, br oughtby ora ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s i n a ny c our tha vi ng j ur i s di c t i on of

tha ta c t i on, unl e s s the c our tf i nds tha tthe pos i t i on of the U ni t ed S t at es w as subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed or thatspec i al c ir c u m s ta n c e s m a k e a n a w a r d u n ju s t.8

28 U . S . C . § 2412( d) ( 1) ( A ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . W hi l e a pr oc e e di ng a nc i l l a ry t o a c r i m i na l f

or f e i tur e pr os e c ut i on— i n w hi c h i nnoc e ntthi r d pa r t i e s s e e k a dj udi c a t i on of the val i di ty of thei r i nt er es t s i n the prop erty— i s aci vi l ac t i on , the cr i m i nal f or f e i tur e of a de f e nda nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr ope rty i s a m a nda t ory e l e m e ntof the se nt enci ng package. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D ou gl as , 55 F . 3d 58 4, 58 5 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ); se e U ni t ed S t at es v. G i l bert , 24 4 F . 3d 88 8, 92 4 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). B e c a us e P e a s e ’ s pe t i t i on i n the a nc i l l a ry pr oc e e di ng ha d be e n ba rr e d by § 853( n) ( 2) , w e r e f

us e d t o c ons i de rhi s c l a i m s i n P e a s e I I . T hus , P e a s e l a c ks s ta n d in g to r a is e in th is ap p e a l a n y c h a lle n g e r e la tin g to th e a n c illa ry p r o c e e d in g . M or e ove r , be c a us e § 2412( d) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi de s f orpa y m e ntof

a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd c os t s t o pr e va i l i ng pa r t i e s i n c i vi l a c t i ons , a nd P e a s e w a s a de f e nda nti n the c r i m i na l a c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha the w a s note nt i t l e d t o the f e e s a n d c o s ts p u r s u a n t to § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) . I I I . R e e d y ’ s a n d L a t o y a ’ s E A J A c la im S ec t i on 24 12 (d) autho ri ze s adi stri ctcourtt o aw ar d fee s a nd expenses af t er m aki ng three fi nd i ng s: (1) the l i t i gantop po si ng the U ni t ed S t at es m ustbe a p r e v a ilin g p a r ty ; ( 2 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t's p o s itio n m u s t n o t h a v e b e e n s u b s ta n tia lly j us t i f i e d; a nd ( 3) the r e m us tbe no c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tm a ke a n a w a r d a ga i ns tthe gove rnm e ntunj us t . J e a n v. N e l s on, 863 F . 2d 759, 765 ( 11th C i r . 1988) , a f f’ d s ub9

nom . C om m i s s i one r , I . N . S . v. J e a n, 496 U . S . 154, 110 S . C t . 2316, 110 L . E d. 2d 1 3 4 (1 9 9 0 ). “ T h e g o v ern m en t ’ s p o si t i o n i s su b st an t i al l y j u st i fi ed u n d er E A JA w he n i tha s a “ r e a s onabl e ba s i s both i n l a w a nd f a c t . ” I d. a t767. “ [ T ] hi s que s t i on i s one w hi ch the di stri ctcourt s a re bett erpo si t i on ed t o d ec i de. ” I d. (i nt ernal c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n m a ki ng the de t e rm i na t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c ons i de r( 1) th e s ta te a t w h ic h th e litig a tio n w a s r e s o lv e d ; ( 2 ) v ie w s e x p r e s s e d b y o th e rc o u r ts on the m e r i t s ; ( 3) the l e ga l m e r i t s of the gove rnm e nt ' s pos i t i on; ( 4) the c l a r i ty of the gove rni ng l a w ; ( 5) the f or e s e e abl e l e ngth a nd c om pl e xi ty of the l i t i ga t i on; a nd ( 6 ) th e c o n s is te n c y o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t's p o s itio n . I d . A p a r ty is d e e m e d to h a v e ab a n d o n e d a n is s u e th a t it in c lu d e s in its s t a t e m e ntof

i s s ue s butdoe s nota ddr e s s i n i t s br i e f . S e e C he f

f e rv. R e no, 55 F . 3d 1 5 1 7 , 1 5 1 9 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T he onl y di s put e R e e dy a nd L a t oy ar a i s e i n thi s appe a l i s w he the rthe G o v ern m en t ’ s p o si t i o n w as su b st an t i al l y j u st i fi ed . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g R ee d y’s a n d L ato ya ’s m o ti o n b ec au se th e G o v er n m en t’ s po si t i on w as subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed. A tthe t i m e the G ov ernm entm ov ed the di stri ct c our tt o m odi f

y the j udgm e ntt o i nc l ude the f or f e i tur e or de r , i tw a s notc l e a rf r om the c a s e l a w i n thi s c i r c ui tw he the rR ul e 36 w a s a pr ope rve hi c l e f orm odi f y i ng a j ud gm entt o i ncl ud e a n o m i tt ed forf ei ture provi si on . F urther, base d o n event s that10

u n f o ld e d in P e a s e ’s c r im in a l c a s e , th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t its pos i t i on r e ga r di ng the c orr e c t i on of the j udgm e ntw a s j us t i f i e d. P e a s e ’ s i ndi c tm e nt i ncl ud ed a f

orfe i ture c ou nt , P ea se ’ s pl eaagre em entcont ai ned a forfe i ture p ro v i si o n , an d atth e ch an g e o f p l ea h eari n g th e m ag i strat e j u d g e q u est i o n ed P ease abouthi s unde r s t a ndi ng of the f or f e i tur e . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the c our ta nd the G ove rnm e nta ga i n br i e f l y a ddr e s s e d the f

or f e i tur e of P e a s e ’ s pr ope r ty , a nd d efen se co u n sel co n fi rm ed th ath e w as n o tch al l en g i n g th e fo rfei tu re. B ecau se P ea se never obj ec t ed t o the forf ei ture of hi s property, the G ov ernm ent ’ s bel i ef that P e a s e ’s p r o p e r ty h a d b e e n f o r f e ite d w a s r e a s o n ab le . I V . P e a s e ’ s H y d e A m e n d m e n t c la im A grantor deni al of att orney’ s f ee s und erthe H yde A m endm ent“ i s r evi ew ed f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” U n ite d S ta te s v . A d k in s o n , 2 4 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 01 ). “ ‘ A n abu se of di sc re t i on occurs i f the j ud ge fa i l s t o app l y the prop er l egal st andard or t o fol l ow prop erprocedures i n m aki ng the det erm i nat i on , or base s an aw ar d [or a deni al ] up on fi nd i ng s of f ac tthatar e c l ea rl y e rr on eous. ’ ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . G ilb e r t, 1 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he H yde A m endm entprov i des i n rel evantpartthat [ d ]u r in g f

is c a l y e a r1 9 9 8 a n d in a n y f is c a l y e a rth e r e a f

te r , th e c o u r t, in a n y c r im in a l c a s e ( o th e rth a n a c a s e in w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t is r e pr e s e nt e d by a s s i gne d c ouns e l pa i d f orby the publ i c ) pe ndi ng on or af t erthe dat e of the enactm entof thi s A ct[N ov . 26 , 19 97 ] , m ayaw ar d11

to a p r e v a ilin g p a r ty , o th e rth a n th e U n ite d S ta te s , ar e a s o n ab le att orney’ s f

ee and o ther l i t i gat i on expenses , w here the courtfi nd s that the po si t i on of the U ni t ed S t at es w as vexat i ou s, fr i vo l ou s, or i n b ad fa i th, un l es s the courtfi nd s thatspec i al ci rc um st ance s m ake s uch an a w a r d unj us t . S uc h a w a r ds s ha l l be gr a nt e d pur s ua ntt o the pr oc e dur e s a nd l i m i t a t i ons ( butnotthe bur de n of pr oof ) pr ovi de d f

or an aw ar d u nd erse ct i on 24 12 of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed S t at es C od e. S e e P u b . L . N o . 1 0 5 - 1 1 9 , 1 1 1 S ta t. 2 4 4 0 , 2 5 1 9 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( r e p r in te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3006A , hi s t or i c a l a nd s t a tut ory not e s ) . “ ‘ V e xa t i ous ’ m e a ns ‘ w i thoutr e a s onabl e or pr obabl e c a us e ore xc us e . ’ ” G i l be r t , 198 F . 3d a t1299. “ A ‘ f r i vol ous a c t i on’ i s one th ati s "[g ] ro u n d l ess . . . w i th l i tt l e p ro sp ecto f su ccess; o ft en b ro u g h tt o em b arrass ora nnoy the de f

e nda nt . ” I d. “ F i na l l y , ‘ ba d f a i th’ ‘ i s nots i m pl y ba d j udgm e ntor ne gl i ge nc e , butr a the ri ti m pl i e s the c ons c i ous doi ng of a w r ong be c a us e of di s hone s tpurpos e orm or a l obl i qui ty ; . . . i tc ont e m pl a t e s a s t a t e of m i nd a f f irm a tiv e ly o p e r a tin g w ith f u r tiv e d e s ig n o rill w ill.” I d . ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A s di s c us s e d above , be c a us e the G ove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on w i th r e ga r d t o the R ul e 36 m att erw as subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed, P ea se has notshow n thati tw as ve xa t i ous , f

r i vol ous , orpur s ue d i n ba d f a i th. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not abuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng P ea se an aw ar d o f a tt orney’ s f ee s a nd cost s und er th e H y d e A m e n d m e n t. V . D ap h n e D ri ve p rop er ty T he s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on of the di s tr i c tc our ti s a que s t i on of l a w a nd,12

the r e f or e , s ubj e c tt o de novo r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z , 956 F . 2d 1098, 1101 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . A r t i c l e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s the "j udi c i a l pow e r " of the U ni t e d S t a t e s t o the r e s ol ut i on of " c a s e s " a nd " c ontr ove r s i e s . " V a l l e y F or ge C hri st i an C ol l ege, 45 4 U . S . at47 1, 10 2 S . C t . at75 7. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). U nde rthe l a w of

the c a s e doc tr i ne , a l e ga l de c i s i on m a de a tone s t a ge of the l i t i ga t i on, unc ha l l e nge d i n as ubs e que ntappe a l w he n the oppor tuni ty e xi s t e d, becom es the l aw of the ca se for f uture s t ages of the sa m e l i t i gat i on , and the part i es ar e dee m ed t o h ave w ai ved the ri gh tt o chal l enge thatdeci si on ata l at ert i m e. S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . E sco b ar-U rreg o , 1 1 0 F . 3 d 1 5 5 6 , 1 5 6 0 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); see al so F e d. R . A pp. P 4( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( w he n U ni t e d S t a t e s i s a pa r ty , not i c e of appe a l m us tbe f ille d w ith in 6 0 d a y s ) . T he r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tthe G ove rnm e ntaba ndone d i t s i nt e ntt o f or f e i tur e the D aphn e D ri ve prop erty. A l tho ug h R ee dy fi l ed a not i ce of appeal fr om the di stri ct c our t ’ s J une 6, 2000 or de r , s he di d notc ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e s ol ut i on r e ga r di ng the D aphne D r i ve pr ope r ty . A c c or di ngl y , R e e dy w a i ve d tha ti s s ue a nd he ra tt e m ptt o appe a l i ti s unt i m e l y . M or e ove r , be c a us e the G ove rnm e ntdi d not se i ze the D aphn e D ri ve prop erty a nd w i thd re w any c l ai m t o i t , the t i t l e di sput e over th e p r o p e r ty b e c a m e a p r iv a te m a tte rb e tw e e n R e e d y a n d o th e rp a r tie s in v o lv e d . T h e req u i rem en to f a case o r co n tro v ersy i s n o tsat i sfi ed u n d er th ese13

c i r c um s t a nc e s ; he nc e , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w R e e dy ’ s c l a i m r e ga r di ng the D ap h n e D r iv e p r o p e r ty . AFFI RM ED .