Opinion ID: 400169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Representation by the United States Attorney

Text: 9 Appellant argues that it is improper for the United States Attorney to represent the district court in this appeal. 3 Appellant contends that the representation creates a conflict of interest in all matters the United States Attorney's Office may have presently pending before Judge Conti and therefore Judge Conti should have obtained representation by outside counsel. 10 Appellant does not cite and we are unable to find any authority for this position. A review of similar cases reveals that such representation by the United States Attorney appears to be a standard procedure. See In re Derickson, 640 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Edwards, 587 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Nakamura, 577 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1978); Christian v. United States, 398 F.2d 517 (10th Cir. 1968). The situation in this case does not appear to differ significantly from denials of other motions. We note that the United States is the named defendant-appellee (unlike mandamus cases) and has a great interest in the outcome as any money awarded will be paid by the Government. 11 Under these circumstances we find representation by the United States Attorney's Office to be proper.