FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 19, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 14 33 4 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 10 2- CV-IPJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, Loc at edat 3 17 NickFit ch ardRo ad , N.W ., Hun ts vi ll e, AL, to ge th er wi th all im pr ov em en ts , fix tu res , andap pu rte na nc es th ereo n, ALL FUNDS ONDEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT NUMBER 8 01 14 02 64 4 Hel d i n t he na m e o f Axi onCo rp or at io n, l oc at edat C ol on ia l Ban k, P.O. Bo x 1 88 7, Bi rm in gh am , AL 352 01 , ALL FUNDS ONDEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT NUMBER 8 03 65 13 41 7 Hel d i n t he na m e o f Axi onCo rp or at io n, l oc at edat C ol on ia l Bank , P.O. Box 18 87 , Birm in gh am , AL 352 01 , Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st19 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, EDMONDSON andHILL, Circu itJu dg es . DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e: The go ve rn m en t ap pe al s fr om a fi na l o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt awa rd in g at to rn ey fees in a ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . This cas e requi res th atwe de te rm in e, as a m at te r of fir stim pr es si on , whet he r at to rn ey fees in cu rredin th e d efen se of a cri m in al act io n m ay

be award edin a rel at edciv il for fei ture ac ti on un de r th e Ci vi l Ass etFo rfei ture Re fo rm

Act o f 20 00 (“ CAFRA” ) § 4 (a), 2 8 U.S.C. § 24 65 (b )(1 ) (2 00 6) , witho utreg ardforth e st rin ge ntli m it at io ns on att orne y -fee award s i n cri m in al cas es un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t, Actof No v. 2 6, 1 99 7, Pub. L. No. 10 5- 11 9, t it . VI, § 6 17 , 11 1 S ta t. 2 44 0, 2 51 9 (1 99 7) , re pr in te d i n 18 U.S.C. § 30 06 A (20 06 ), hi st or ic al an d s ta tu to ry no te s [h erei na fte r Hy de Am en dm en t]. I. BACKGROUND InAug us t 2 00 3, Ax io n C or po rat io n (“ Axi on ”) s ecu reda $3 .7 m il li on co nt ractwith t he Uni te d S ta te s Army to supp ly part s fo r a Bl ackHawk h el ic op te r.
2InJu ne 20 06 , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d aciv il in rem for fei tu re co m pl ai ntin th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 81 (a)( 1) (A) (2 00 6) ag ai ns t two o f Axi on ’s ban k a cco un ts an d t he pa rcel of real pro pe rty where th e co m pa ny is l oc at edon th e b as is th atAxi on ha d v io la te d th e te rm s o f th e co nt ract , as wel l as sev eral fed eral laws . There are t hr ee cl ai m an ts to th e d efen da ntpro pe rti es : Ax io n; it s p res id en t, Al ex Noo red in Lati fi ( “ Lati fi” );
an d Lat ifi ’s wife, Be thLati fi ( co ll ect iv el y , “ th e cl ai m an ts ”). The go ve rn m en t fi le d
a m ot io n b efo re J ud ge Virg in iaEm ers onHop ki ns to st ay th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re pr oc eed in g p ur su an t t o C AFRA § 8(a ), 18 U.S.C. § 9 81 (g )(1 ), whi ch di rect s t he di st ric t co urt t o “ st ay

th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re p ro ceed in g i f th e co urt d et erm in es th at ci vi l d is co ve ry

wil l ad ve rs el y

affe ctth e ab il it y

of t he Gov ern m en t t o c on du cta rel at edcri m in al in ve st ig at io n o r th e p ro se cu ti onof arel at edcri m in al cas e.” 1 Ju dg e Hop ki ns gra nt edth e m ot io n t o s ta y th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . InMarc h 2 00 7, the go ve rn m en t fi le d a n i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Ax io n a ndLati fi in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a. The
“[T] he ter

ms ‘related criminal case’ and ‘r elated c riminal investigation’ mean a n actua l 1 prosec ution or investigation in progr ess at the time at whic h the re quest for the stay , or any subsequent motion to lift the stay is made. In deter

mining whe ther a

criminal ca se or investigation is ‘related’ to a civil forf eiture pr ocee ding, the court . . . c onsider[s] the degree of simil arity betwee n the par

ties, witnesses, fa cts, and c ircumstance s involved in the two proce eding s, without requiringan identity with respec t to any

one or morefac tors.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(g )(4)
. 3cri m in al cas e was ass ig ne d t o J ud ge Ing e Prytz Jo hn so n. A supe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t ch arg edLati fi andAxi on with t wo co un ts of e xp orti ng witho utth e requi redli cen se de fen se art ic le s o r de fen se servi ces de si gn at edby the Pres id en t fo r in cl us io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s M un it io ns Lis t, i n v io la ti on of t he Arm s Expo rt Co nt ro l Act , 22 U.S.C. § 2 77 8( b) (2 ), (c) (C ou nt s 1 an d 6 ); m ak in g afal se rep res en ta ti on co nc ern in g a n a irc raftpa rt, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 38 (a)( 1) (C) (Co un t 2 ); a ndm ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1 (C ou nt 3) . The i nd ic tm en t al so in cl ud edtwo cri m in al for fei tu re co un ts (Co un ts 4 an d 5 ). 2 Ju dg e Jo hn so n h el d asev en -d ay be nc h t ria l tha t re su lt edin anacqui tt al on all
co un ts . Afte r th e cri m in al ch arg es ag ai ns t Lat ifi an d Ax io n wer e d is m is se d, the civ il
cas e was trans ferr edto Ju dg e Jo hn so n. Th e g ov ern m en t fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se with p reju di ce, wh ic h a ls o c on ta in eda reque stfor a cert ifi cat e o f rea so nabl e cau se un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( a) (2 00 6) . In the ir
res po ns e, th e cl ai m an ts ag reedth atth e cas e sh ou ldbe di sm is se d wi thpre jud ic e The indictment spec ifically alleg ed that L atifi and Axion, who had bee n awa rded a 2 contra ct by

the U.S. Army

to produce bifilar we ight a ssemblies for B lack Ha wk helicopter s, knowing ly

and willfully

exported to China technical dr awing s of the bifilar w eight assembly for the UH 60 B lack Ha

wk without first obtaining a license a nd authorization from the State Depa rtment’s Dire ctorate of Tr ade Controls. In addition, L atifi and Axion alleg edly fra udulently misrepre sented to the U.S. Army the source of a pa

rt used in the produc tion of the bifilar we ight assembly and made false statements in test reports submitted to the U.S. Army reg ardinga separ ate pr oduct that was the subject of a separ ate c ontrac t. 4an d a ss ert edth atsu ch a di sm is sa l en ti tl edth em to att orne y

fees un de r CAFRA. The cla im an ts als o o bjec te d t o t he go ve rn m en t’s re qu es t fo r a certi fic at e o f
reas on ab le cau se . The g ov ern m en t the n fi le d am ot io n fo r le av e to withd raw i ts
m ot io n t o d is m is s wi th pre jud ic e. Ju dg e Jo hn so n g ran te d t he m ot io n t o wi th dr aw an d s eta he ari ng on th e m ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f rea so nabl e cau se . The go ve rn m en t fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s wi th ou t p reju di ce, s ta ti ng th atitno lo ng er in te nd edto pu rs ue th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se . The cl ai m an ts ag ai n a ss ert edth atth e cas e sh ou ldbe di sm is se d wi th pre jud ic e. The g ov ern m en t the n fi le d ano ti ce wi th th e co urt s ta ti ng th atth e g ov ern m en t was withd rawi ng it s re qu es t fo r a certi fic at e of reas on ab le cau se . On Apr il 2, 2 00 8, the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he cas e wit h pr ejud ic e an d c on cl ud edth atth e cl ai m an ts were “ en ti tl edto reco ve r rea so nabl e at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts alo ng with i nt eres t p ur su an t t o the pro vi si on s o f CAFRA.” (Or., R. 7 2 a t 8 .) On M ay 29 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt o pi ne d t ha t, p ur su an t t o C AFRA, th e cl ai m an ts are en ti tl edto reco ve r bo th fees in cu rredin de fen di ng th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re act io n andfees in curredinde fen di ng th e cri m in al cas e an d o rd eredth e p aym en t o f
su ch fees an d i nt eres t. Uni te d Sta tes v. C er ta in Real

Pro p. , 56 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 25 2, 12 61 –6 2 (N.D. Ala . 20 08 ). Cit in g W eb b v . Boa rd

of Edu ca ti on of

Dyer Co un ty, Ten ness ee , 47 1 U.S. 2 34 , 10 5 S . Ct. 1 92 3 (1 98 5) , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the 5at to rn ey

fees in cu rredin th e cri m in al cas e, a “ rel at edpro ceed in g,” are re co ve rab le in th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on be cau se th e work was “ ‘use fu l an d o f a ty pe ord in ari ly
ne ces sa ry to sec ur e th e fi na l re su ltob ta in edfro m th e li ti ga ti on .’ ” Id
. at12 61 (quo ti ng W

eb b , 47 1 U.S. at24 3, 1 05 S. Ct. at19 28 ). The co urt fi rs t fo un d t ha t the cri m in al cas e work was us efu l, s ay in g: [T]he work d on e b y

th e cl ai m an ts ’ at to rn ey s i n t he cri m in al cas e was cle arl y us efu l as itdi rect ly resu lt edin th e d is m is sa l o f th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se . In fact , th e cl ai m an ts were re qu ire d t o l it ig at e th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se th ro ug h th e cri m in al cas e b ecau se of t he st ay im po se d o n t he civ il for fei tu re ca se . If Lati fi a ndAxi on ha d b een co nv ic te d i n t he cri m in al cas e, th enth e p ro pe rty wou ldha ve be enimm ed ia te ly sub ject t o fo rfei ture. If the de fen da nt s wer e acqui tt ed , as the y

were, the n t ha t re su ltwou ldno t h av e h adres jud ic at a effe cton th is civ il for fei tu re ca se . . . . [T] he go ve rn m en t h adno in te nt io n o f pu rs ui ng th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se aft er Lat ifi an d Ax io n wer e acqui tt ed
. Thu s, the acqui tt al in th e cri m in al cas e d ire ct ly ledto th e d is m is sa l o f th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se . Ind eed , th e o nl y way forth e cl ai m an ts to ob ta ina di sm is sa l o f th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ca se was b y ob ta in in g a n a cqui tt al in th e cri m in al cas e. Id
. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The co urt the n c on cl ud edth at“ [t]he workwas . . . of a type o rd in ari ly neces sary to sec ur e th e fi na l re su ltob ta in edfro m th e li ti ga ti on si nc e th e ci vi l p ro ceed in g was st ay edpu rs ua ntto CAFRA an d . . . th e o nl y way for th e cl ai m an ts to su ccee d was to ga in anacqui tt al in th e cri m in al tri al .” Id
. The
co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t “ [a]wardi ng th e cl ai m an ts fees forworkdo ne in th e cri m in al cas e cl earl y

all ows th e cl ai m an ts to av oi d t he st ric te r requi rem en ts for

6reco ve rin g a tt orne y s’ fees un de r th e Hy de Am en dm en t,” id
. , whi chrequi res

cl ai m an ts reco ve rin g s uc h fe es in a cri m in al cas e to pro ve “ th atth e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa ith.” Hy de Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co urt ad de d t ha t “ if [ it ] were t o fi ndth atfees in curredde fen di ng th e cri m in al cas e were n otreco ve rab le un de r CAFRA, the n t he go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e al lo wedto av oi d C AFRA, as itha s t rie d t o d o i n thi s ca se , by m ov in g fo r a s ta y in th e ci vi l ca se an d p ro se cu ti ng th e cri m in al cas e.” 5 66 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 26 1. The di stric t co urt’s t ot al att orne y -fee awardbe fo re d educ ti on s was 3 $4 14 ,19 8.5 0; th e d is tri ctco urt at tri bu te d $ 29 2,9 29 .50 of t hi s awa rdto 13 27 .7 ho ur s o f work o n t he cri m in al cas e. Id
. at 1 26 2. Th e u lt im at e awardmin us 4 de du ct io ns was $ 36 3,9 56 .92
. The g ov ern m en t the n p erfe ct edth is ap pe al
. 5

The district cour

t concluded that cer

tain deductions we re w arr anted f or thing s such as 3 secr etarial work a

nd unbilled hours. These de ductions are not a subject of this appe al. The g overnme nt sugg ests in its briefingthat the district court should have attributed 4 cer tain fee s to the defe nse of the c riminal action, and not to the de fense of the c ivil action, but does not appe al the district cour t’s finding s of fa ct. See Br . of Appe llant 12 n.3; Reply Br . of Appellant 2 (“ We do not here c halleng e the district cour t’s calc ulation of the number of hours rea sonably

expended by

the def ense in the c ivil forfeitureproce edingor in the criminal prosec ution . . . .”). B eca use we arenot called upon to re view the district cour t’s finding s of fac t, we do not opine on them her e. Rec alculation of the fee s due to claimants upon re mand is left to the discre tion of the district court. The district cour

t’s initial award w as for

$363,259.92. 566 F. Supp. 2d at 1334. This 5 amount was incr ease d by

the district court on June 5, 2008, to $363,956.92, based on additional evidenc e filed by

the claimants. (O r., R. 78 at 1–2.) 7On ap pe al , th e g ov ern m en t u rg es , in te r a li a , th atCAFRA’s p la in lan gu ag e

li m it s t he awardof a tt orne y fees un de r §4 (a), 2 8 U.S.C. § 24 65 (b )(1 ) to th os e fee s in cu rredforworkdo ne ex pl ic it ly for the civ il for fei tu re p ro ceed in g. The 6 cl ai m an ts co un te r, in acco rdwith t he di st ric t co urt, tha t the Supr em e Co urt h as de ci de d i n o th er co nt ex ts th atsi m il arl y -wo rd edfee- sh ift in g s ta tu te s en co m pa ss th e awardof f

ees in cu rredou ts id e o f th e st atut or il y -n am edli ti ga ti on an d t ha t thi s pr eced en t al lo ws the m

to reco ve r un de r CAFRA fe es in cu rredin th e d efen se of a rel at edcri m in al cas e. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ ‘T he pro pe r st an da rdfor anawardof a tt orne y ’s fees is a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo .’ ” Mor il lo -Ced ro n v . Dis t. Di r. f

or th e U.S. Ci ti

ze ns hi p & Immigra ti on Se rvs. , 45 2 F .3d12 54 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Sma lb ei n v . Ci tyof Dayt on a Bea ch , 35 3 F .3d90 1, 9 04 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). III. DISC USSION Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th atth e co nt ou rs of Co ng res s’s wai ve r of

th e Uni te d S ta te s g ov ern m en t’s s ov erei gn imm un it y in th e The g overnme nt also argues that eve n if such fe es ca n be aw arde d under CAF RA, the 6 require ments for a

n attorney-fe e aw ard unde r the Hyde Amendme nt must be satisfied so as not to provide a means a round the stricture s of the Hyde Amendme nt. Be cause we c onclude that the fee s incurre d in defe nse of the c riminal action ca nnot be re cover ed under

CAFRA, we do not addre ss this contention. 8CAFRA fe e-s hi fti ng pro vi si on canbe de te rm in edby loo ki ng to th e p la in lan gu ag e

an d s tru ctur e o f CAFRA. We ho ldth atatt orne y fees in cu rredin th e d efen se of a cri m in al act io n, ev enif re la te d t o aciv il for fei tu re ac ti on as i n t he pre se ntcas e, can no t b e award edun de r CAFRA. Th is ho ld in g i s s up po rte d b y CAFRA’s le gi sl at iv e h is to ry , andwe fin d t he Supr em e Co urt ca se s ci te d b y th e d is tri ctco urt in ap pl ic ab le in th is co nt ex t. A. To d et erm in e whe th er at to rn ey fees forworkdo ne in a cri m in al pro se cu ti on m ay be award edin a rel at edciv il for fei tu re ac ti on un de r CAFRA § 4(a ), 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( b) (1 ), we turnfir stto th e te xtof the st atut e to di sc ernco ng res si on al in te nt . CAFRA’s fee -s hi fti ng pro vi si onpro vi de s i n p ert in en t p art :

[I]n an y civ il pro ceed in g t o fo rfei t p ro pe rty un de r an y pro vi si on of Fed eral law i n wh ic h t he cla im an t s ub st an ti al ly prev ai ls , th e Uni te d S ta te s sh al l b e li ab le for– (A) rea so nabl e at to rn ey

fees an d o th er l it ig at io n c os ts reas on ab ly in cu rredby the cla im an t; [an d] (B) p os t-ju dg m en t i nt eres t, as setforth in Sect io n 1 96 1 o f th is ti tl e. CAFRA § 4(a ), 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( b) (1 ). Ourin te rp ret at io n o f th e CAFRA fee-s hi fti ng pro vi si on is gu id edby pr in ci pl es of s ov erei gn imm un it y , whi ch bar th e awardof a tt orne y fees ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s ab se ntex pl ic itco ng res si on al au th or iz at io n. Se e Ruc kel sh au s v. 9Si erra Clu b , 46 3 U.S. 6 80 , 68 5 & n.7 , 10 3 S . Ct. 3 27 4, 3 27 7– 78 & n .7 (1 98 3) ; se e

al so Ard es ta ni v. U.S. Dep ’t o

f Ju st ic e , 90 4 F .2d15 05 , 15 09 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (“ A
co urt m ay no t g ran t at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s i n t he ab se nc e o f a co ng res si on al or c on st itut io na l wai ve r of so ve rei gn imm

un it y whi ch gr an ts itth e au th or it y

to do so .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). A waiv er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s g ov ern m en t’s s ov erei gn imm un it y m us t b e “ un equi vo cal ,” Dep ’t of Ener gyv. Ohi o , 50 3 U.S. 6 07 , 61 5, 1 12 S. Ct. 1 62 7, 1 63 3 (1 99 2) , su pe rs ed ed bystat ut e , Fed eral Faci li ty Com pl ia nc e Actof 1 99 2, Pub. L. No. 1 02 -3 86 , § 1 02 , 10 6 S ta t. 1 50 5, an d t he pro vi si on “ m us t b e co ns tru edst ric tl y

in fav orof t he
so ve rei gn . . . an d n oten la rg edbe y on d wh atth e la ng ua ge requi res ,” Ruc kel sh au s , 46 3 U.S. at68 5– 86 , 10 3 S . Ct. at32 78 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) ; se e a ls o Arde st an i , 90 4 F .2dat 1 50 9 (s ta ti ng th ata st atut e th at“ waiv es so ve rei gn imm

un it y in all owi ng att orne y

fees ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s . . . m us t b e co ns tru edst ric tl y ”). On i ts face , th e la ng ua ge of C AFRA’s fee- sh ift in g p ro vi si on ap pe ars to co nt em pl at e o nl y th e awardof a tt orne y

fees in curredinth e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . Se e CAFRA § 4(a ), 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( b) (1 ) (“ [I]n an y civ il pro ceed in g t o fo rfei t pr op erty . . . .”). W it ho utanexpr es s wai ve r of th e g ov ern m en t’s s ov erei gn imm un it y , we can no t fi ndth atsu ch a waiv er ex is ts . To jus ti fy it s awa rdof t he

10fees in cu rredin de fen di ng Axi on an d Lat ifi ’s cri m in al cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt

ch arac te riz edth e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on as h av in g b een li ti ga te d “ th ro ug h t he cri m in al cas e b ecau se of t he st ay im po se d o n t he civ il for fei ture ca se .” 56 6 F
. Supp . 2dat 1 26 1. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s ch arac te riz at io n s ta te s p reci se ly why we
can no t fi ndth atth e at to rn ey fees in cu rredin de fen di ng th e cri m in al cas e are reco ve rab le in th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on un de r th e au sp ic es of C AFRA: th e fee s were i nc urredin th e d efen se of acri m in al act io n, n ota ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on or pr oc eed in g i n s up po rt o f a ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . Ourread in g o f th e fee -s hi fti ng pro vi si on is supp orte d b y CAFRA’s st ru ctur e. Whe n C on gr es s fa sh io ne d C AFRA’s fee- sh ift in g p ro vi si on in 20 00 , it si m ul ta ne ou sl y

ex pa nd edth e g ov ern m en t’s ab il ity to see k ast ay

of t he civ il fo rfei tu re p ro ceed in g i n l ig htof a n o ng oi ng cri m in al in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on—p reci se ly the m ech an is m us edby the go ve rn m en t i n t hi s ca se . Se e CAFRA § 8(a ). Co ng res s ef fect iv el y ga ve th e g ov ern m en t the ab il ity to ch oo se whi chto pu rs ue fir st—a c iv il for fei tu re ac ti on , a rel at edcri m in al in ve st ig at io n, o r th e p ro se cu ti on of arel at edcri m in al cas e—a s l on g a s “ th e [d is tri ct ] co urt de te rm in es th atciv il di sc ov ery wil l ad ve rs el y affe ctth e ab il it y

of t he Gov ern m en t to co nduc t a r el at edcri m in al in ve st ig at io n o r th e p ro se cu ti onof arel at edcri m in al
cas e.” Se e CAFRA § 8(a ), 18 U.S.C. § 9 81 (g )(1 ).

11Co ng res s p ro vi de d p ro pe rty clai m an ts th e p ro te ct io ns itth ou gh t ap pr op ria te

whi le ret ai ni ng th e u se fu ln es s o f ci vi l fo rfei tu res in law en fo rcem en t ac ti vi ti es . Cf . Ramir ezv. Uni te d Sta tes , 57 Fed . Cl. 2 40 , 25 0– 51 (Fed . Cl. 2 00 3) (no ti ng Co ng res s’s i nt en t tha t CAF RA “ le av e th e u nd erl y in g fo rfei tu re au th or it y of f ed eral ag en ci es subs ta nt ia ll y

un affe ct ed ”). Fi rs t, the Act p ro vi de s t ha t i n l ie u o f st ay in g th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ca n i ss ue a pr ot ect iv e o rd er l im it in g di sc ov ery. CAFRA § 8(a ), 18 U.S.C. § 9 81 (g )(3 ). Seco nd , if the di st ric t co urt de te rm in es th ata st ay

is ne ces sa ry

to pro te ctth e g ov ern m en t’s re la te d c riminal in ve st ig at io n o r cas e, § 9 81 (g )(6 ) di rect s t he co urt t o “ en te r an y ord er n eces sa ry

to pr es erv e th e v al ue of t he pro pe rty or t o p ro te ctth e ri gh ts of l ie nh ol de rs or o th er pe rs on s wi th anin te res t i n t he pro pe rty whil e th e st ay is in effe ct .” The ex pr es s

7 te rm s o f CAFRA’s fe e-s hi fti ng pro vi si on do no t g o fu rth er an d e xp res sl y all ow t he awardof f

ees in cu rredin de fen se of arel at edcri m in al cas e inth e ci vi l fo rfei tu re act io n i f th e cl ai m an ts are ac qu it te d o f th e cri m in al ch arg es . W e can no t wai ve th e go ve rn m en t’s s ov erei gn imm un it y an d a tt em

ptto fas hi on su ch anad di ti on al We also note that the stay of a c ivil forfeiture action whe re the re is a r elated c riminal 7 action ofte n can se rve to be nefit criminal defenda nts who are claimants to the prope rty that is the subject of the c ivil forfeiture action; the stay in the civil case preve nts the g overnme nt from using civil discovery

as a me ans to obtain information to flesh out the c riminal case ag ainst the claimants. See A

fro-Lecon, Inc . v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1203 (F ed. Cir. 1987) (“ The broad sc ope of c ivil dis cover y may prese nt to both the prosecution, and at times the criminal defe ndant, an irr esistible temptation to use that discovery to one’s adva

ntag e in the criminal case .”); see also United States v . A Certain Parcel of Land , 781 F. Supp. 830, 834–35 (D. N .H. 1992) (grantinga stay

of discover

y in a civil forf

eiture a ction to protect a

criminal def

endant’ s Fifth Ame ndment rights). 12pr ot ect io n wh ere C on gr es s h as no t ch os ento do so . Se e W ri gh t v. S ec’yfo r Dep ’t of Co rr . , 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ [C]ou rts ou gh t n otad d t o wh at th e le gi sl atur e h as sai d i s t he law. . . . Our fu nc ti onis to ap pl y st atut es , to carry

ou t th e ex pr es si onof t he leg is la ti ve wil l tha t i s embod ie d i n t he m , no t t o ‘im pr ov e’ st atut es by alte rin g t he m .”); Harris v. Ga rn er , 21 6 F .3d97 0, 9 76 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (enba nc ) (“ W e wil l n otdo to th e st atut ory lan gu ag e wha t Co ng res s d idno t d o with i t, b ecau se th e ro le of the jud ic ia l b ran ch is to ap pl y st atut ory lan gu ag e, no t t o rewri te it .”); se e a ls o Ewi ng &Th oma s, P.A. v. Heye , 80 3 F .2d61 3, 6 16 (11 th Cir
. 19 86 ), su pe rs ed ed bystat ut e , Act o f Ju ly 30, 1 99 6, Pub. L. No. 1 04 -1 68 , Titl e VII,
se cs . 70 1( a)– (c), 7 02 (a), 7 03 (a), 7 04 (a), 1 10 Sta t. 1 46 3, 1 46 4 (“ An am en dm en t t o a st atut e is cle arl y

a le gi sl at iv e, no t a ju di ci al fun ct io n. We can no t n ow d o wh at Co ng res s m ay

ha ve want edto acco m

pl is h b utha s l eftun do ne .”). The lan gu ag e o f th e se iz ur e an d s ta y pro vi si on s i n § 98 1 a ls o d em on st rat es th atCo ng res s was ful ly cog ni zan t tha t wo rkdo ne in de fen se of acri m in al cas e m ay be us edto de fen d a ga in sta ci vi l fo rfei tu re. Fo r ex am pl e, in ord er t o de te rm in e “ whe th er a cr im in al cas e o r in ve st ig at io n i s ‘rel at ed ’ to a ci vi l fo rfei ture pr oc eed in g” so as t o warran t a s ta y , Con gr es s i ns tru ct edth e d is tri ctco urt t o

“ co ns id er the de gr ee o f si m il ari ty betweenth e p art ie s, wi tn es se s, fa ct s, an d ci rcu m st an ces in vo lv edin th e two pro ceed in gs .” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 81 (g )(4 ). In

13ad di ti on , on e jus ti fic at io n fo r gr an ti ng a cl ai m an t’s re qu es t fo r a s ta y of t he civ il fo rfei tu re ac ti on is th atdi sc ov ery in th e ci vi l ca se m ay un co ve r in fo rm at io n u se fu l in th e cri m in al pro se cu ti on . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 81 (g )(1 )– (3 ). Desp it e Co ng res s’s ackno wled gm en t o f th e in te rco nn ect edne ss of c iv il for fei tu re an d c riminal pr oc eed in gs , Con gr es s’s wai ve r of so ve rei gnimm

un it y in th e CAFRA fee-s hi fti ng pr ov is io n d oe s n otex pr es sl y st at e th atcla im an ts in civ il for fei tu re p ro ceed in gs can ob ta in in th e ci vi l p ro ceed in g t ho se fees th ey in cu r as cri m in al de fen dant s i n a rel at edcri m in al cas e. The cla im an ts urg e th at“ CAFRA wo ul d b e ren de redm ean in gl es s i f th e go ve rn m en t co ul d a lways ev ad e li ab il it y by lit ig at in g i n t he cri m in al forum .” (Br. of App el le e 3 0.) Li ke wis e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ai d t ha t i f it“were t o fi ndth atfees in cu rredde fen di ng th e cri m in al cas e were n otreco ve rab le un de r CAFRA, the n t he go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e al lo wedto av oi d C AFRA.” 5 66 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 1 26 1. Th es e arg um en ts ig no re two i m po rta ntpo in ts . Firs t, cl ai m an ts in civ il for fei tu re ac ti on s do no t al way s fa ce cr im in al ch arg es ; Be th Lati fi i s a p rime exam pl e. Seco nd , by de si gn in g t he civ il for fei tu re ac ti onst ay pro vi si on as i t d id , Con gr es s ex pr es sl y au th or iz edth e “ st rat eg y ,” se e Br. o f App el le e 3 1, u se d b y th e g ov ern m en t i n t hi s cas e.

14Viewi ng th e st atut ory sch em e in it s en ti rety , we can no t co nc lu de th atin ad di ti on to th e p ro te ct io ns ex pr es sl y lai d o utinst atut e, Co ng res s i m pl ic it ly pr ov id edth atth e fee s i nc urredin de fen se of arel at edcri m in al cas e can be
reco up edin th e ci vi l ca se . As we h av e rep eat ed ly said , itis no t the co urts ’ pl ace to fas hi on ad di ti on al pro te ct io ns , and , inth is in st an ce, the so ve rei gn imm un it y of th e Uni te d S ta te s p recl ud es us fro m do in g s o. Ourho ld in g a ls o i s co ns is te ntwith t he co nc ern s ex pr es se d b y Co ng res s i n CAFRA’s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory . As ex pl ai ne d b y th e d is tri ctco urt, “ th e st at ed pu rp os e o f CAFRA i s ‘to m ak e fed eral civ il for fei tu re p ro cedur es fai r to pro pe rty own ers an d t o g iv e o wne rs in no cen t o f an y wron gd oi ng th e m ean s t o re co ve r th ei r pr op erty an d m ak e th em se lv es who le aft er wro ng fu l g ov ern m en t s ei zu res .’ ” 56 6 F. Supp . 2dat 1 26 0 (q uo ti ng H.R. Rep . No. 1 06 -1 92 , at 1 1 (1 99 9) ). The U.S. Hou se of R ep res en ta ti ve s C omm it te e o n t he Ju di ci ary expr es se d c on cern th at

“ m an y civ il sei zu res are n otch al le ng ed ” due to th e co st s i nv ol ve d i n c ha ll en gi ng th em . H.R. Rep. No . 10 6- 19 2, at14 (19 99 ). Sim il arl y , th e Co m m it te e ex pr es se d
co nc ern“with the arduo us pa th on e m us t jo urne y

[in a ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on ] ag ai ns t a p res um

pt io n o f gu il t, o fte n wi th ou t the be ne fitof c ou ns el , andpe rh ap s witho utan y

m on ey lef t af te r th e se iz ur e wit h wh ic h t o fi gh t the ba tt le .” Id
. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . W e h av e n otfou ndan yth in g i n

15th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry , ho wev er, tha t i nd ic at es Co ng res s was tro ub le d b y th e fac t th atciv il for fei tu re ac ti on cla im an ts who are cr im in al de fen da nt s i n re la te d c as es be ar the co st s o f th ei r cri m in al de fen se s u nd er the tra di ti on al Am eri can Ru le
. As 8
we no te be lo w, where Co ng res s h adsu ch co nc ern s, i t ad dr es se d t he m with t he Hy de Am en dm en t. Inde sc rib in g t he il ls of t he form er ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on syste m , th e Hou se of R ep res en ta ti ve s C omm it te e o n t he Ju di ci ary’ s re po rt o n CAFRA, the n H.R. 1 65 8, d es cri be d t wo i ns ta nc es wher e p ro pe rty owne rs in cu rred gr eatex pe ns e in trying to reg ai n t he ir p ro pe rti es aft er ci vi l fo rfei tu res . Se e H.R. Rep . No. 1 06 -1 92 , at 8 , 10 . In b ot h o f th e ex am pl es pro vi de d, the cla im an ts were no t p ro se cu te d fo r cri m es ass oc ia te d wi th th e ci vi l fo rfei tu re. Se e id
. at8– 9 (d es cri bi ng a cas e whe re cr im in al ch arg es “ were qui ck ly dro pp edforlac k o f
ev id en ce, [b ut ] th e g ov ern m en t re fu se d t o re le as e [the pro pe rty] ” an d t he cla im an t ul ti m at el y

was fo rcedto de cl are b an krup tc y as ares ul t o f th e se iz ur e); id
. at10 –1 1 (d es cri bi ng a cas e inwhi ch no cri m in al ch arg es were fi le d, b uta m ot el was s ei zed fo r “ ta ci t ap pr ov al of i ll eg al it y ” an d t he own ers “ were fo rcedto sp en d s ub st an ti al
am ou nt s o f ti m e an d m on ey on hi rin g a n a tt orne y

an d d efen di ng ag ai ns t the
“Unde r the Ame rica

n Rule, United States courts follow a g eneral pra ctice of

not 8 awa rdingfee s to a preva iling par ty in a suit.” Smalbein v. City of Daytona Be ach , 353 F.3d 901, 904 (11th Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks omitted); accord U nited States v. Aetna I

ns. Co. , 831 F.2d 978, 983 ( 11th Cir. 1987) (statingthat under the Americ an Rule “[p]arties must pay their own wa

y s as fa r as leg al costs”) . “[T] he def ault assumption is that ea ch par ty is responsible for its own leg al fe es, and thus fe es ordinarily will not be awar ded to the pre vailing pa rty without express statutory

authority .” Johnson v. Florida , 348 F.3d 1334, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 16go ve rn m en t’s fo rfei tu re ac ti on ” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). The

de sc rip ti on s o f th es e cas es im pl y th atha d the se cla im an ts be enth e subjec t o f le gi ti m at e o ng oi ng cri m in al in ve st ig at io ns an d p ro se cu ti on s, Co ng res s wo ul d n ot ha ve ha d s im il ar co nc ern s. The CAFRA fee -s hi fti ng pro vi si onwas d es ig ne d t o m ak e cl ai m an ts who le fo r th ei r effo rts to reco ve r th ei r pr op erty ina ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . The p ur po se of de fen di ng a cri m in al pro se cu ti on is no t t o re co ve r pr op erty , bu t t o d efen d t he
accu se d’s fr eed om . Whe re the cri m in al pro se cu ti on is “br ou gh t v ex at io us ly, in ba d fa it h, o r so ut te rly with ou t fo un da ti on in law o r fac t as to be fri vo lo us ,” th e Hy de Am en dm en t p ro vi de s t he m ean s o f rec ov ery. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gi lb er t , 19 8 F.3 d 1 29 3, 1 29 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Oth erwi se , un le ss th e d efen da ntis in di ge nt , he be ars th e co stof h is own de fen se . W e fi ndno th in g i n t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory of CAFRA t o c ou nt er thi s i nt erp ret at io n. B. The di stric t co urt b as edit s awa rdof a tt orne y fees forAxi onan d Lat ifi ’s cri m in al cas e work on two Supr em e Co urt ca se s wh ere t he Co urt d et erm in edth at 9

In its categ orization of attorney fee s as either

havingbeen inc urre d in relation to Axi on 9 and L atifi’s criminal defense or the c ivil forfeiture action, the district cour t assigne d to the criminal ca se fe es incurr ed in def endingU.S. Army

administrative proc eeding s conce rning suspension or deba

rment of Axion as a def

ense c ontrac tor ($1,522) a nd in prepa

ration for potential Fa lse-Claims-Act proc eeding s ($51), c oncludingthat the g overnme nt may have introduced those issues a s other-a ct evidenc e. We do not disturb that finding. 17si m il arl y -wo rd edfee- sh ift in g s ta tu te s al lo wedforth e awardof a tt orne y fees in cu rredou ts id e o f th e actua l l it ig at io n: W eb b v . Cou nt

y Boa rd of Edu ca ti on of Dyer Co un ty, Ten ne ss ee , 47 1 U.S. 2 34 , 10 5 S . Ct. 1 92 3 (1 98 5) , and Pen ns ylva ni a v. Dela wa re Val le

y Ci ti ze ns ’ Co un ci l f

or Cle an Air

( Dela wa re Val le

y I ), 47 8 U.S. 54 6, 1 06 S. Ct. 3 08 8 (1 98 6) . 56 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 26 0– 62 . W e fi ndth es e cas es di st in gu is habl e. The di stric t co urt drew p rimaril y up on W eb b , wher e th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t at to rn ey

fees forworkdo ne in op ti on al st at e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs m ay

be award edto a pr ev ai li ng civ il rig ht s l it ig an t u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 88 to th e ex te ntth ata “ di sc ret e p orti on ” o f th e work was “us efu l an d o f a ty pe or di na ril y ne ces sary ” to th e su cces sf ul ou tc om e o f th e subs eque ntli ti ga ti on . W eb b , 47 1 U.S. at24 1, 2 43 , 10 5 S . Ct. at19 28 –2 9. Atth e ti m e o f th e W eb b de ci si on , th e § 19 88 fee- sh ift in g p ro vi si onreadin pe rti ne ntpa rt: Inan y act io n o r pr oc eed in g t o e nf or ce a p ro vi si on of § § 1 98 1, 1 98 2, 1 98 3, 19 85 an d 1 98 6 o f th is ti tl e, ti tl e IX o f Publ ic Law 92 -3 18 , or t it le VI of t he Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , th e co urt, i n i ts di sc ret io n, m ay all ow t he pr ev ai li ng pa rty, oth er than t he Uni te d S ta te s, a re as on ab le att orne y ’s fee as pa rt o f th e co st s. Se e id
. at 2 36 n.1 , 10 5 S . Ct. at19 25 n.1 . After s uc ces sf ul set tl em en t o f a ci vi l rig ht s ac ti on un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ga in sta sc ho ol bo ard , a tenur edbl ack el em en ta ry

sch oo l t each er fi le d i n t he di st ric t co urt a m ot io n fo r anawardof
18at to rn ey

fees un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8. Id
. at23 7– 38 , 10 5 S . Ct. at19 25 –2 6. Th e sc ho ol bo ardha d d is m is se d h im an d uph el d t he di sm is sa l i n aser ie s o f adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs . Id
. at23 7, 1 05 S. Ct. at19 25 . The d is tri ctco urt de ni edth os e fee s i nc urredby the tea ch er i n d efen se of t he sch oo l adm in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs , bu t awa rd edfees forworkdo ne onth e fed eral co urt l it ig at io n. Id
. at 23 9, 1 05 S. Ct. at19 26 . The Si xt h C irc ui t af firm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng . Id
. The Supr em e Co urt al so affi rm ed , st at in g t ha t the pl ai nt iff ha d n otest ab li sh edth at

“ an y di sc ret e p orti onof the workpro du ctfro m th e ad m in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs was work tha t was bo th us efu l an d o f a ty pe ord in ari ly neces sa ry

to adva nc e th e ci vi l rig ht s l it ig at io n t o t he st ag e itreac he d b efo re s et tl em en t.” Id
. at24 3, 1 05 S. Ct. 19 28 –2 9. Al th ou gh th e Co urt af firm edth e d en ia l o f th e fee s i nc urredin de fen se of th e ad m in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs in to to , itin di cat edth atatt orne y fees forti m e sp en t p ur su in g o pt io na l ad m in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs m ay be in cl ud edin th e cal cu la ti on of areas on ab le att orne y fee awa rd edun de r § 1 98 8 i f th e work i s sp eci fic al ly ide nt ifi edan d i s “ us efu l an d o f a ty pe ord in ari ly neces sa ry ” to sec ur e th e fi na l re su ltob ta in edfro m th e li ti ga ti on . Id
. 1 0

The Court indicate d that it could addre ss only the question prese nted to the district 1 0 court: “whether

the time spent on the administrative wor k . . . should be included [in the attorney fee s awa rd] in it s entirety

or excluded in its entirety .” Id. at 243, 105 S. Ct. at 1929.

19The di stric t co urt al so cit ed Dela wa re Val le y I , wher e th e Co urt ap pl ie d W eb b an d h el d t ha t wo rkdo ne to m on it oran d e nf or ce i m pl em en ta ti on of aco ns en t de cree en te redin to by the Co m m on weal th of P en ns y lv an ia(in cl ud in g pa rti ci pa ti on in reg ul at ory pro ceed in gs an d re vi ew of pro po se d re gu la ti on s)
co ns ti tu te d c om

pe ns ab le att orne y

fees un de r th e Cl ean Air Act , 42 U.S.C. § 7 40 1. Dela wa re Val le

y I , 47 8 U.S. at56 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at30 96 . The Cl ean Air Actfeesh ift in g p ro vi si on readas f ol lo ws: The co urt, i n i ss ui ng an y

fin al ord er i n a ny acti on bro ug htpu rs ua ntto subs ect io n (a ) of

th is sec ti on , m ay

awardco st s o f li ti ga ti on (in cl ud in g reas on ab le att orne y

an d e xp ertwitne ss fees ) to an y pa rty, when ev er the co urt d et erm in es su ch awardis ap pr op ria te . Se e id
. at 5 57 , 10 6 S . Ct. at30 94 . In Dela wa re Val le y I , pri va te cit iz en s fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t the Co m

m on weal th to co m

pe l i m pl em en ta ti on of ave hi cl e em is si on in sp ect io n a ndm ai nt en an ce p ro gr am requi redby the Cle anAir Act
. Id
. at 5 49 , 10 6 S . Ct. at30 90 . To ai d i n e nf or cem en t o f th e res ul ta ntco ns en t d ecre e, at to rn ey s fo r th e ci ti zen s’ cou nc il co m m en te d o n t he st at e tr an sp orta ti on de pa rtment’s re gu la ti on s an d p art ic ip at edin Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy he ari ng s. Id
. at55 0, 5 52 –5 3, 1 06 S. Ct. at30 90 , 30 92 . The d is tri ctco urt awa rd ed fees for th es e act iv it ie s u nd er the Cle anAir Act , 42 U.S.C. § 7 40 1. Id
. at55 3, 1 06 S. Ct . at 3 09 2. Th e Thi rdCir cu itaffi rm ed
. Id
. at55 6, 1 06 S. Ct. at30 93 . The Supr em e Co urt al so affi rm ed , con cl ud in g t ha t al th ou gh th e work d idno t “ oc cu r in 20th e co nt ex t o f tr ad it io na l ju di ci al li ti ga ti on ,” itwas c om pe ns ab le be cau se itwas

“us efu l” an d “ ne ces sa ry ” in th atithe lp edto pro te ctth e rel ie f award edun de r th e co ns en t d ecre e an d t hu s was cru ci al to th e v in di cat io n o f th e p arty ’s rig ht s. Id
. at 56 0– 61 , 10 6 S . Ct. at30 96
. As we s ta te d e arl ie r, W

eb b an d Dela wa re Val le

y I are d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th e p res en t ca se . Firs t, i n b ot h W eb b an d Dela wa re Val le

y I , th e is su e was th e awardof a tt orne y

fees for workdo ne with re ga rdto no n- jud ic ia l ac ti vi ti es un de r th e au th or it y

of s ta tu to ry

fee- sh ift in g p ro vi si on s re le va ntto pa rti cu lar jud ic ia l act io ns or p ro ceed in gs . For e xam pl e, in W eb b , th e Co urt co ns id eredth e ap pl ic ab il it y

of t he § 1 98 8 fe e-s hi fti ng st atut e d es ig ne d fo r § 1 98 3 c iv il rig ht s cas es to vo lu nt ari ly-pu rs ue d s ch oo l b oa rdadm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs . W eb b , 47 1 U.S. at 2 39 , 10 5 S . Ct. at19 26 . In Dela wa re Val le y I , th e Co urt af

firm edth e ap pl ic ab il it y

of t he Cle anAir Act ’s fee-s hi fti ng st atut e to po st -li ti ga ti on act iv it ie s be fo re a re gu la to ry

bo dy andin adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng s. Dela wa re Val le y I , 47 8 U.S. at 5 61 , 10 6 S . Ct. at30 96 . In b ot h i ns ta nc es th e Supr em e Co urt i nd ic at edth at at to rn ey fees m ay be award edforth es e ex tra -jud ic ia l ac ti vi ti es wher e th ey are su ffi ci en tl y

co nn ect edto a si ng le co urt ac ti on th atis subjec t t o the rel ev an t st atut ory fee- sh ift in g p ro vi si on . In co nt ras t, the di stric t co urt i n t hi s ca se award ed at to rn ey fees in cu rredin de fen di ng a se pa rat e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g. Fe es in cu rred

21fo r Axi on an d Lat ifi ’s cri m in al de fen se are n otli ke th e fee s i nc urredin W eb b an d Dela wa re Val le

y I fo r ex tra -jud ic ia l ac ti vi ti es in supp ort o f li ti ga ti on th atit se lf
was subjec t t o t he rel ev an t fe e-s hi fti ng pro vi si on . Cf . Gree r v. Ho lt , 71 8 F .2d20 6, 20 8 (6 thCir . 19 83 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e awardof a tt orne y fees forworkin an adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in g i n s up po rt o f a ci vi l ac ti on subjec t t o afee- sh ift in g st atut e is di ffer en t fr om

th e awardof f

ees in cu rredin de fen se of acri m in al pr oc eed in g t ha t— ev enth ou gh itis ba se d o n the same op erat iv e fac ts —i s s ep arat e fro m a ci vi l p ro ceed in g s ub

ject t o afee-s hi fti ng st atut e). Seco nd , award in g t he att orne y fees forop ti on al adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs an d p os t-l it ig at io n a ct iv it ie s i n W eb b an d Dela wa re Val le

y I was in furth eran ce o f th e p ur po se s o f th e fee -s hi fti ng st atut es at i ss ue in th os e cas es . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d i n Dela wa re Val le y I th atth e fee -s hi fti ng pro vi si on s atis su e in Dela wa re Val le

y I an d W eb b were en act edto en su re ef fect iv e en fo rcem en t o f cert ai n i m

po rta ntfed eral in te res ts th ro ug h c it iz ensu it s. Dela wa re Val le y I , 47 8 U.S. at 5 59 –6 0, 1 06 S. Ct. at30 95 . “ [T]he co m m on pu rp os e o f bo th§ 3 04 (d ) an d § 1 98 8 t o p ro m ot e ci ti zenen fo rcem en t o f im po rta ntfed eral po li ci es ,” id
. at56 0, 10 6 S . Ct. at30 96 , requi redth e awardof a tt orne y fees forth es e ex tra -li ti ga ti on act iv it ie s. Fo r ex am

pl e, wit h re ga rdto civ il rig ht s cl ai m s, the Co urt n ot edth at

“ Co ng res s fo un d t ha t m an y leg it im at e cl ai m s wo ul d n otbe redres se d” “un le ss

22reas on ab le att orne y ’s fees co ul d b e award ed .” Id
. at56 0, 1 06 S. Ct. at30 95
. The re i s n o c om

pa rab le co nc ernhe re, wh ere t he cri m in al de fen da nt s Ax io n a nd Lati fi we re s uf

fic ie nt ly m ot iv at edby the cri m in al ch arg es to av id ly pur su e th ei r cri m in al de fen se . Cf

. Kah an e v. UNUM Li

fe Ins . Comp . of

Am. , 56 3 F .3d12 10 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (aff irming de ni al of a tt orne y

fees forworkdo ne inERISA pr e-l it ig at io n a dm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs wher e in jecti ng att orne y s i nt o t ho se pr oc eed in gs “ co ul d s ev erel y un de rm in e th e co ng res si on al pu rp os e” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). The p res en t ca se is ak in to Gre er v. Hol t , 71 8 F .2d20 6 (6 th Cir . 19 83 ). In a n a ct io n b ro ug htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, Gre er as se rte d t ha t po li ce o ffi cers ass au lt edan d b eathi m whi le he was i n t he ir c us to dy. Gre er , 71 8 F.2 d a t 2 07 . Prio r to fil in g tha t fe de ral cla im , Greer was pro se cu te d i n s ta te co urt fo r as saul t an d b at te ry

of t he po li ce o ffi cers ari si ng fro m th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces . Id
. Greer was acqui tt edof t he cri m in al ch arg es , whi ch was n eces sa ry forhi s su cces s i n h is § 1 98 3 a ct io n, an d h e th erea fte r pr ev ai le d i n h is civ il rig ht s s ui t. Id
. The Six th Cir cu itup he ldth e d en ia l o f at to rn ey fees in th e fed eral civ il cas e u nd er § 1 98 8 fo r work d on e in th e cri m in al pro se cu ti on be cau se , “ [s ]trat eg ic al ly, th e at to rn ey s fo r Greerha d l it tl e ch oi ce b utto pu rs ue a fu ll de fen se to th e cri m in al ch arg es .” Id
. at 2 08
. C.

23Whi le ou r rea di ng of C AFRA § 4(a ), 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( b) (1 ) al on e is

su ffi ci en t t o warran t a r ev ers al of t he di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey fees for
work d on e in de fen se of acri m in al pro se cu ti on , we addth atth e Hy de Am en dm en t al so supp orts ou r co nc lu si on . The cl ai m an ts urg e th atth e Hy de Am en dm en t h as no pl ace i n o uran al y si s o f th is cas e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt awa rd edth e fee s i n qu es ti on in a ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on to whi ch th e Hy de Am en dm en t d oe s n otap pl y . W e d is ag ree. Th e d is tri ctco urt awa rd edun de r CAFRA fe es in cu rredin de fen se of a cri m in al act io n, wh ic h a re s ub ject t o t he Hy de Am en dm en t. The Hy de Am en dm en t p ro vi de s i n p ert in en t p art : [T]he co urt, i n a ny crim in al cas e (o th er tha n acas e in whi ch th e de fen da ntis rep res en te d b y ass ig ne d c ou ns el pa idforby the publ ic ) . . . m ay awardto a pr ev ai li ng pa rty, oth er tha n t he Uni te d S ta te s, a reas on ab le att orne y ’s fee an d o th er l it ig at io n e xp en se s, wh ere the co urt fi nd s t ha t the po si ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fri vo lo us , or i n b adfai th , un le ss th e co urt fi nd s tha t s pe ci al ci rcu m st an ces m ak e su ch anawardun jus t. Su ch award s s ha ll be gr an te d p ur su an t t o t he pro cedur es an d l im it at io ns (bu t n otth e b ur de n of pro of ) pr ov id edforanawardun de r [the Equ al Acces s t o J us ti ce Act ( EAJA), 2 8 U.S.C. § ] 24 12
. As the di st ric t co urt ac kn owl ed ge d, “ an y awardin th is cas e whi ch in cl ud es fees in cu rredin th e cri m in al cas e wou ldall ow the cla im an ts to reco ve r th os e fee s witho utpro vi ng th atth e p os it io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s was ve xa ti ou s, fr iv ol ou s, o r in ba d fa it h.” 56 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 26 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The

24di st ric t co urt’s ac kn owl ed ge d c irc umve nt io n o f th e Hy de Am en dm en t was

in ap pr op ria te . IV. CONCLUSION The di stric t co urt ru le d t ha t, i n aciv il for fei tu re ac ti on , CAFRA p erm it s reco ve ry of f ees in cu rredin th e d efen se of arel at edcri m in al pro ceed in g wh ere th atworkwas “ us efu l” an d o f th e type “ or di na ril y ne ces sa ry ” to th e su cces sf ul
ou tc om e o f th e subs eque ntciv il for fei tu re ac ti on . Becau se we rejectth e d is tri ct co urt’s co nc lu si on forth e rea so ns st at edab ov e, we va cat e th e Ma y 29 , 20 08 ord er of th e d is tri ctco urt awa rd in g t he cla im an ts att orne y fees un de r CAFRA § 4(a ), 28 U.S.C. § 2 46 5( b) (1 ) an d re m an d t hi s ca se forreca lc ul at io n o f th e fee s an d i nt eres t du e co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . 1 1 VACATED an d REMANDED.

We note that Axi on and L atifi’s motion for attorne y fee s and costs pursua

nt to the Hyde 1 1 Amendment filed in the r elated c riminal case on Dec ember 12, 2007, rema ins pending . The district court stayed all fur ther proc eeding s in the criminal ca se until this court issued the instant decision. Upon re mand of this case , the district court may want to consider

Axi on and L atifi’s motion for attorney

fee s and costs in the re lated criminal procee ding.

25HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng :

W e are rev ie win g o ne cas e – th e ci vi l ca se for

for fei tu re. Nin e m on th s af te r itwas fi le d, the go ve rn m en t b ro ug htcri m in al ch arg es . Ass ert in g t ha t ci vi l d is co ve ry wou ldadve rs el y

affe ctth e g ov ern m en t’s po si ti onin th e cri m in al cas e, th e g ov ern m en t m ov edfor an d was grant eda st ay

of th e ci vi l ca se . Disc ov ery was fro zen . The lawyers re ta in edto rep res en t cl ie nt s i n t he civ il for fei tu re ca se fou nd th em se lv es face d wi th a cri m in al cas e th atco ul d b e d is as tro us to th ei r cl ie nt s’ in te res ts . W ou lditbe work“us efu l” to th ei r cl ie nt s an d wo rk“ of a type o rd in ari ly
ne ces sa ry ” to co m

pe te nt ly repre se ntth em ? Of cou rs e, itwas n oton ly use fu l. It
was ne ces sa ry . Se e W

eb b v . Boa rd

of Edu c. of Dyer Co un ty, Ten n. , 47 1 U.S. 2 34 , 24 3, 1 05 S.Ct . 19 23 , 19 28 (19 85 ). Affi da vi ts of e xp eri en cedco un se l s ta te d u nd er o ath tha t “ . . . it wo ul d b e im po ss ib le to de fen d t hi s ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on witho utde fen di ng an d o bt ai ni ng anacqui tt al in th e u nd erl y in g c riminal act io n.” There is no di sp ut e. Co un se l rep res en ti ng th e ap pe ll ees in th is civ il act io n wo ul d h av e b een in ad equa te to th e po in t o f m al pr act ic e to ha ve ig no redth e n ew cri m in al cas e. W ere c ou ns el to m on it oran ot he r cas e o n tria l i n c ou rt i n a no th er juri sd ic ti on , no ti ng th e qua li ty of ev id en ce an d i m pa ctof wi tn es se s, tha t wo ul d b e 26“us efu l.” Itwou ldbe work“ of a type o rd in ari ly neces sary ” to co m pe te nt rep res en ta ti on . Fees in cu rredin th atus efu l an d n eces sa ry workwere p ro pe rly award ed . It
was th ere t ha t the for fei tu re ac ti on was d efea te d. I wou ldaffi rm .

27