Background

• Pocklington sought attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment after the Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated his probation revocation and sentence for lack of district court jurisdiction to revoke probation post-expiration.
• The panel assumed the outcome could be construed as a merits ruling in Pocklington’s favor, but held fees were not warranted because the government’s position was not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.
• The question presented involved whether the requirements for extending probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c) are jurisdictional, a matter of first impression for the circuit.
• The court noted § 3565(c) interpretation had not been previously addressed in the context of retroactive extensions, equitable tolling, or plain error review.
• The government’s position was assessed against Hyde Amendment standards, focusing on whether it was ‘frivolous’ or otherwise improper by virtue of being groundless or designed to embarrass Pocklington.
• The panel concluded that the government’s position was not frivolous and declined to award Hyde Amendment fees.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Braunstein, 281 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2002) (frivolousness defined by lack of merit and tendency to embarrass)
• United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (frivolous standard; groundless prosecutorial positions)
• United States v. Manchester Farming P’ship, 315 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2003) ( Hyde Amendment standards; disjunctive elements)
• United States v. Merlino, 785 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional rule not subject to equitable tolling)
• United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional analysis for similar statutory language)
• United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2004) (context for jurisdictional interpretation)
• United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014) (context for interpretation of § 3565(c) timing)