United States v. Claudio Gutierrez-Cruz
680 F. App'x 203
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Claudio Gutierrez-Cruz was arrested for first-degree murder, completed a financial affidavit, and requested appointed counsel under the CJA.
- He disclosed sole ownership of two unencumbered residences: a U.S. residence (valued around $80–100k) and a Mexico residence (valued around $60–100k depending on affidavit).
- Magistrate judge appointed counsel but found Defendant financially able to repay counsel and ordered reimbursement when the real estate could be liquidated.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, later moved to reconsider the reimbursement order asserting he needed both homes for his family and should not be forced to sell.
- District court denied reconsideration, finding Defendant had substantial unencumbered assets available for repayment (noting alternatives to sale such as borrowing or renting) and sentenced him; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in ordering reimbursement under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A | Gutierrez-Cruz: equity in two modest homes is necessary to house family; should not be used to repay CJA costs | Government: district court properly identified specific, non‑speculative assets (two unencumbered residences) available for repayment | Affirmed: court may order reimbursement where defendant has identified, readily identifiable, available assets (even if illiquid) |
| Whether a homestead exemption shields property from CJA reimbursement | Defendant: homestead protection should prevent using homes to repay counsel | Government: no applicable CJA homestead exemption shown; district court did not order sale and suggested alternatives | Court declined to recognize/apply a homestead exemption here and found it unnecessary to order sale; reimbursement valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir.) (describing requirements for CJA reimbursement orders identifying specific available assets)
- United States v. Johnson, 659 F.2d 415 (4th Cir.) (advising appointment of counsel at government expense when assets are illiquid and allowing later reimbursement)
- United States v. Ductan, 800 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.) (placing burden on defendant to show indigence for CJA eligibility)
- United States v. Parker, 439 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (CJA protects Sixth Amendment right but funds are limited)
- United States v. Davis, 958 F.2d 47 (4th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to prove lack of means to retain counsel)
- United States v. Fincher, 593 F.3d 702 (8th Cir.) (recognizing application of a state homestead exemption to CJA in that circuit)