Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Mettetal
Citation: 34 F. App'x 215Docket: No. 01-5757
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; May 7, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr. appeals a district court order that denied his motion for reimbursement of attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment. In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Mettetal for mail fraud. After he was convicted of a more serious offense elsewhere, the government voluntarily dismissed the indictment against him without prejudice, and the district court approved this dismissal. Mettetal sought reimbursement for attorney’s fees in August 2000, but the district court ruled his request was untimely and denied it. Mettetal's appeal challenges the timeliness of his motion. The court reviews the district court's decision de novo. According to the Hyde Amendment, motions for reimbursement must be filed within 30 days of the final judgment in the underlying action. The district court determined that the final judgment occurred in January 1999, upon the government’s dismissal of the indictment. Since Mettetal filed his motion over a year later, in August 2000, it was outside the required timeframe. Mettetal contended that final judgment did not occur until after the statute of limitations expired, as the government could have re-indicted him. However, even if this argument were valid, his motion would still be untimely. The statute of limitations for the mail fraud charge began when the crime was completed, which was in May 1995, when he submitted a falsified postal form. With a five-year statute of limitations, it expired in May 2000, and Mettetal did not file his motion within the 30 days following this expiration. Consequently, the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mettetal's motion, and the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment.