United States v. Taiwo Onamuti, 103 F.4th 1298

Taiwo Onamuti was charged in 2017 with 23 crimes tied to a substantial tax-fraud scheme involving the use of stolen personal information.
He pleaded guilty to identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and presenting false claims for tax refunds, receiving a total of 204 months in prison, which included a mandatory 24-month term for aggravated identity theft.
Onamuti later sought to have his convictions vacated under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, successfully arguing that the aggravated identity theft statute did not cover his conduct. His sentence was reduced by 24 months accordingly.
He then moved for attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment, arguing that the government’s pursuit of the aggravated identity theft charge was frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.
The district court denied his motion for attorney’s fees on procedural grounds, citing timeliness and insufficient documentation.
Onamuti appealed, raising issues regarding both the timeliness of his appeal and the merits of his Hyde Amendment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which appeal deadline applies for Hyde Amendment fee appeals?	Civil deadline should apply due to the civil nature of fee claims	Criminal deadline should apply since fees arise from criminal case	Civil (60-day) deadline applies to Hyde Amendment fee appeals
Was the government’s prosecution of aggravated identity theft in bad faith?	Gov't acted vexatiously and in bad faith in pursuing the charges	The error was a good-faith mistake, corrected when discovered	No evidence of bad faith; simple mistake, not bad intent
Did the district court properly deny Onamuti's motion for attorney’s fees?	Fees should have been granted due to gov’t conduct	Motion was untimely, lacked documentation, not bad faith by gov’t	Denial affirmed; merits do not support fee award
Does a mistake of law by the government satisfy the Hyde Amendment standard?	Gov't misunderstanding shows culpability	A legal mistake alone is insufficient for bad faith or vexatiousness	Mere mistake of law does not meet standard for fees

United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2000) (held that civil appeal deadline applies to Hyde Amendment attorney’s fees orders)
United States v. Truesdale, 211 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (civil deadline governs appeals of Hyde Amendment fee rulings)
United States v. Braunstein, 281 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2002) (Hyde Amendment fee orders are ancillary civil matters)
United States v. Wade, 255 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Hyde Amendment motions are fundamentally civil)
United States v. Robbins, 179 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999) (criminal appeal deadline applies to Hyde Amendment motions)
United States v. Segal, 938 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2019) (civil deadline applies to postjudgment, ancillary proceedings in criminal cases)