US v. Daniel Turno, No. 10-5172 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5172 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANIEL CHARLES GERARD TURNO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00004-MBS-1) Submitted: June 6, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Wm. Ruschky, John A. O Leary, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury acquitted Daniel Charles Gerard Turno of making a false statement in a loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 district court (West for Supp. 2011). attorney s Turno fees and applied other to the litigation expenses, pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A (West 2000 & Supp. 2011). The district court denied Turno s motion and Turno now appeals. The burden of proof in a Hyde Amendment action is on the claimant, rather than the Government. Jury, 215 F.3d 430, 435 n.7 (4th Cir. In re 1997 Grand 2000). We review a district court s decision under the Hyde Amendment for abuse of discretion. Id. at 436. For Turno to prevail, he must show that the Government s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. * Our review of the record does not show that the Government s position was vexatious, frivolous, or made in bad faith. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not * The Hyde Amendment also requires a claimant to prove: (1) the case was pending on or after the enactment of the Hyde Amendment; (2) the case was a criminal case; (3) he was not represented by assigned counsel paid for by the public; (4) he was a prevailing party; (5) . . . the attorney s fees were reasonable; and [(6)] no special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust. In re 1997 Grand Jury, 215 F.3d at 436 n.8 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of these additional factors are at issue in the present case. 2 abuse its discretion in denying Turno s motion for attorney s fees and other litigation court s judgment. facts and materials legal before expenses. We affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
