United States v. Carri Robertson, 980 F.3d 672

Joseph Robertson was indicted on Clean Water Act and property-damage counts; the district court appointed CJA counsel and warned he might have to reimburse defense costs if assets were found.
After a mistrial, the court reassessed Robertson’s finances and ordered partial CJA reimbursement (lump sum plus monthly payments); Robertson later was convicted and sentenced, and appealed both conviction and the CJA order (Robertson I and II).
Robertson petitioned the Supreme Court; while certiorari was pending he died. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated Robertson I and remanded to consider mootness.
On remand this court vacated the conviction, judgment, restitution, and indictment ab initio, but the district court held the previously-affirmed CJA reimbursement order survived and that $1,550 returned to the estate could be applied to the outstanding CJA debt (~$13,200).
Robertson’s widow appealed the district court’s enforcement of the CJA reimbursement order; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the CJA obligation was final, independent of the conviction, and enforceable against the estate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal ab initio deprived the district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the CJA reimbursement	Abatement ab initio nullifies all prosecution proceedings, so court lost power to enforce CJA order	Court always has power to determine its own jurisdiction and to decide whether abatement applies	Court had jurisdiction to decide and did so; abatement question properly adjudicated
Whether CJA reimbursement order abates with vacatur of indictment/conviction	Reimbursement is tied to the prosecution and should abate with conviction vacatur	CJA reimbursement can be ordered independent of conviction; statute allows orders when funds are available	CJA reimbursement is independent and final here; not subject to abatement ab initio
Whether the Government waived enforcement or misapplied returned restitution funds (availability under §3006A(f))	Government’s return of restitution and estate obligations show waiver or that funds are not "available" for CJA debt	Government’s return of restitution did not address CJA obligation; no waiver shown	No waiver; returned $1,550 may be applied to the CJA debt; estate owes outstanding balance

United States v. Rich, 603 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2010) (abatement ab initio vacates restitution tied to a conviction but does not necessarily affect independent preexisting receiverships)
United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (death abates convictions, fines, and restitution tied to conviction but not collateral obligations like bail bond forfeiture)
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (federal courts have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
United States v. Robertson, 875 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2017) (Robertson I) (affirming conviction and sentence as part of the procedural history relied upon)
United States v. Robertson, [citation="704 F. App'x 705"] (9th Cir. 2017) (Robertson II) (affirming CJA reimbursement order and recognizing reimbursement may be ordered before conviction)