United States v. Juan Garcia, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15288

Garcia pled guilty to illegal reentry and sought a CJA attorney to challenge a prior Iowa felony conviction that would affect his federal sentence.
The Iowa conviction (delivery of cocaine) added 12 levels and raised Garcia’s Guidelines range from 0–6 months to 33–41 months; he received a 30-month sentence.
Garcia requested appointment of Iowa counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) to pursue a Padilla-based challenge to the Iowa conviction.
The district court denied the request for additional CJA funds, and Garcia appealed the denial.
The court held that challenging the Iowa conviction is not an ancillary matter under § 3006A(c) because it is not related to the principal federal charge or the immediate defense in the federal case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether challenging a prior unrelated state conviction to affect federal sentencing is ancillary under § 3006A(c).	Garcia argues ancillary matters include state postconviction relief affecting the federal case.	Garcia contends the state challenge should be considered ancillary under § 3006A(c).	No; not ancillary under § 3006A(c).

United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (definition of ancillary matters in CJA context)
United States v. Claro, 579 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2009) (ancillary analysis in CJA)
City of Arlington v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation of CJA ancillary concept)
In re Berger, 498 U.S. 233 (1989) (review of CJA fee principles by Supreme Court)
United States v. Reddick, 53 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 1995) (ancillary matters limited to proceedings within principal charge context)
United States v. Lindsey, 875 F.2d 1502 (11th Cir. 1989) (legislative history suggesting ancillary matters are within the action)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (conviction counsel duties; no broad entitlement to postconviction relief funding)