Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneystatutepleamotiondeportation
jurisdictionattorneystatutepleafelonydeportationplea bargain

Related Cases

Kwok Sze v. Johnson
View Case »
Fermin-Rodriguez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Longwood Village Rest., Ltd. v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Lopez-Elias v. Reno
View Case »
Hmaidan v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Soueiti; U.S. v.

Facts

Soueiti ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses on several credit cards and stretched out the fraud by paying his credit card bills with bad checks. He was subject to judicial deportation at sentencing under 1252a(d)(1), now at 28 U.S.C. 1228(c), after pleading guilty to bank fraud. The plea agreement obligated him to 'stand silent' on the issue of deportation, but he presented evidence and argument anyway. The district judge declined to order deportation based on deficiencies in the government's proof and later denied Soueiti's motion for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Soueiti ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses on several credit cards. He stretched out the fraud by paying his credit card bills with bad checks. Soueiti was subject to judicial deportation at sentencing, under 1252a(d)(1), now at 28 U.S.C. 1228(c). His plea was to bank fraud, and as a Lebanese citizen, he was subject to deportation as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The issue came up in plea bargaining. The plea agreement obligated Soueiti to 'stand silent' and 'present no evidence or argument' on the issue of whether the district court should deport him.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying Soueiti's claim for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act on the grounds that the case was criminal and not civil.

Whether the district court erred in denying Soueiti's claim for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act on the grounds that the case was criminal and not civil.

Rule

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), limits attorneys' fees awards to 'any civil action' and does not apply to criminal proceedings.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), limits attorneys' fees awards to 'any civil action' and does not apply to criminal proceedings.

Analysis

The court determined that even if the district court had erred in its reasoning for denying attorneys' fees, the fees should still be denied because a criminal sentencing is not a civil action. The court emphasized that the statute explicitly limits fee awards to civil actions and that the nature of the proceedings in this case was criminal, as Soueiti was being sentenced for a crime.

The court determined that even if the district court had erred in its reasoning for denying attorneys' fees, the fees should still be denied because a criminal sentencing is not a civil action. The court emphasized that the statute explicitly limits fee awards to civil actions and that the nature of the proceedings in this case was criminal, as Soueiti was being sentenced for a crime.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court order that denied Soueiti's claim for attorneys' fees because attorney's fees could only be awarded in civil actions, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to award them in a criminal sentencing action.

The court affirmed the district court order that denied Soueiti's claim for attorneys' fees because attorney's fees could only be awarded in civil actions, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to award them in a criminal sentencing action.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's decision that denied attorneys' fees, affirming that the proceedings were criminal in nature.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's decision that denied attorneys' fees, affirming that the proceedings were criminal in nature.

You must be