United States v. Joyce M. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974 (11th Cir. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joyce M. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974 (11th Cir. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Steven Michael Marks (ca11, 2024-01-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Steven Michael Marks
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
See United States v. Bloomer, 150 F.3d 146 , 148–49 (2d Cir. 1998); cf. United States v. Rodriguez, 833 F.2d 1536 , 1537–38 (11th Cir. 1987) (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)); United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir. 2001) (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fredrico Pacheo-Romero
11th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir. 2001); see United States v. Owen, 963 F.3d 1040, 1053 (11th Cir. 2020).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Stanford
S.D. Tex. · 2011 · confidence medium
See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(5); United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir.2001) ("[D]istrict courts are vested with discretion to set the amounts; fee determinations are made in an administrative setting rather than in an adversarial posture; awards of fees are not dependent upon the outcome of the case; and the CJA does not require a court to hold adversary hearings on fee awards.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Timothy N. Homrighausen
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION A. Appellate Jurisdiction As a threshold matter, we reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it was entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f). 1 See United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir.2001) (concluding that payment orders made pursuant to § 3006A(f) are administrative rulings not subject to appellate review).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Richard Lee Owen, II (2×)
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974, 974 (11th Cir. 2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joyce M. GRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant
98-8882.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 31, 2001.
240 F.3d 974
Frank J. DiMarino, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edmondson, Carnes, Cox.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Attorney Joyce M. Griggs appeals the district court’s order compelling Griggs to reimburse the Criminal Justice Act fund pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f) for fees she received from a client. The court concluded that the fees should be used to cover the fees and expenses of the client’s former court-appointed lawyer. Griggs presents a number of issues on this appeal. However, we cannot reach the merits of Griggs’s appeal because we lack jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court has jurisdiction over appeals of the final decisions of district courts. In United States v. Rodriguez, we concluded that fee determinations made by district courts pursuant to the § 3006A(d) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) were administrative in nature and therefore not subject to appeal as final decisions. See 833 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1987). In reaching that conclusion, we noted that the CJA makes no. provision for appeal of fee determinations; district courts are vested with discretion to set the amounts; fee determinations are made in an administrative setting rather than in an adversarial posture; awards of fees are not dependent upon the outcome of the case; and the CJA does not require a court to hold adversary hearings on fee awards. See id. at 1537-38.

The factors recognized in Rodriguez are also present when a district court orders the payment of funds under § 3006A(f). As with fee determinations, payment orders under § 3006A(f) are not made ap-pealable by the CJA, are left to the discretion of the trial judge, are made in an administrative setting, are unrelated to the outcome of the case, and can be made without prior adversary hearings. We therefore conclude that § 3006A(f) payment orders, like § 3006A(d) fee determinations, are not appealable final orders under § 1291. Accordingly, Grigg’s appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

[*975] DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.