730 F.3d 343
3d Cir.2013Background
- Konrad was appointed CJA counsel after filing a financial affidavit; post-sentencing review revealed discrepancies between the CJA affidavit and the presentence report.
- District Court found Konrad had $70,463 in IRAs and $34,893 in a joint bank account, which it deemed available funds to pay for counsel.
- Court concluded IRAs are liquidable for purposes of CJA eligibility, despite a 10% early withdrawal penalty.
- Court held that Konrad’s total resources exceeded basic living needs, justifying reimbursement for the defense costs.
- A Master calculated Konrad’s private-defense-cost at $6,000 using the lowest private-attorney hourly estimates; Konrad appeals this amount.
- This appeal concerns whether the District Court properly found availability of assets and whether reimbursement should reflect actual government costs or private-market costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What funds are ‘available’ for CJA reimbursement? | Konrad | Konrad | IRAs and jointly held accounts are available funds; assets liquid enough to cover costs. |
| Appropriate reimbursement amount under § 3006A(f)? | Government | Konrad—reimbursement should reflect actual government costs. | Court did not abuse discretion in ordering reimbursement at private-counsel market cost (6,000) rather than CJA hourly rate. |
| What is the proper unit for reimbursement (cost expended vs. benefit received)? | Government | Reimbursement should reflect the cost of private representation rather than CJA rate. | Reimbursement aligns with the cost actually expended for Konrad’s defense, not merely CJA-rate charges. |
| Should liquidation penalties affect availability of IRA funds? | Konrad | IRAs are usable despite 10% penalties. | Early withdrawal penalties do not render IRAs unavailable; liquidation possible. |
| Should family assets (joint accounts) be disregarded if family can’t advance payment promptly? | Government | Joint assets are available if defendant controls them. | Joint accounts are available assets when defendant has discretionary control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barry v. Brower, 864 F.2d 294 (3d Cir.1988) (liquidity and availability of assets; extreme hardship considerations)
- Bracewell v. United States, 569 F.2d 1194 (2d Cir.1978) (availability of assets requires ability to convert to cash without extreme hardship)
- Fincher v. United States, 593 F.3d 702 (8th Cir.2010) (equity/assets can be liquidated to cover costs; consideration of liquid assets)
- Parker v. United States, 439 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard; holistic eligibility inquiry under CJA)
- O’Neil v. United States, 118 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.1997) (consideration of anticipated income in eligibility determination)
- Lexin v. United States, 434 F.Supp.2d 836 (S.D. Cal.2006) (IRA treatment as future income in some contexts; not controlling here)
- Coniam v. United States, 574 F.Supp. 615 (D. Conn.1983) (reimbursement amount should reflect actual costs; not subsidized at lower rates)