ÿWPCÅ) sl‚Q'õ?|–¥îl-©EÄ6É ™qêf3‚ ¶6|GF¹=~=4GüO¯`( TÀÆ„vŠ½ÁMæã5‹Ra·Aˆ¿»@&htÏÒËôÌl“Ì”‹É8Ø;±"¥KòmÍ <0¬ Y0Ënj´d/ d–eì¨. L5¥öèÝoŸ ôÑáíxá2éú4\{åÕþ¾åÄ/IÝŠ³—1)n‹·'¯ú ^Yžø«ˆg$Ê ûŸ¼4ì%óÓˆ Ì ¥é‹„wkÒEžNj3+ôzH£Æ¤† )õòrpö4€%Bb¢ÀTîEúBkdíJøÂ1Kîÿ ù ë0o„8üøOë„Vð¬`DÇpÞò@ÄÝ)0ŒÞE4‡µRÖâûžåfššK,§i³Ë8Æ4JvóL{-²õ9ÊYCárò0è²PW„øn-äc¥3d¿Ì ¸Ï¾0ÝðôõÌQ&|ÉÅŽÌ¢v÷;£ßN!hÀ%ºÊ£Å§xžîåV*•¯…÷&ñ’Ô§1PjìIf5o-7Iå$ƒM'…È…u‰Ý½lÜP團!>–l]¼üp&º!>nx2à4WW „0®ÊP1cS·Uì,ú>>à­^#!$ÔE % 0( ^ G w@S 4“ § ¶ m¸ Ï N× bÙ UBá 1‡# 0 µª 0 D_ î£ UÑ>‘ÕÏ 1u¤UNUFg¤ ­aQ 0c² E!f!)!!!aB%B%B%V%V%Ël%q7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7(7( B¨)˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 ÊÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àIn€the€district€court,€the€government€contested€whetherÐ ° Ðthe€defendants€were€properly€considered€"prevailing€parties"€withinÏthe€meaning€of€the€Hyde€Amendment,€as€the€indictment€was€dismissedÏwithout€prejudice.‹($¡¡Ì ì*Æ  3¡3¢3£3E¤3¥3¦3§3E¨3©3ïy‡˜*Æ.wpdÑ3|x©3 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(Š½CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(e(2Þ+$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó äÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àIndeed,€though€the€òòGilbertóó€court€provides€a€definitionÐ ° Ðfor€"vexatious"€that€does€not€explicitly€require€improper€motive,Ïit€assesses€the€government's€conduct€in€light€of€all€three€elementsÏthat€would€support€a€Hyde€Amendment€award€simultaneously,€so€it€isÏnot€entirely€clear€how€the€court€would€apply€"vexatious"€inÐ Ð   Ðisolation.€€The€court€does€note€that€the€Hyde€Amendment€wasÏ"targeted€at€prosecutorial€misconduct,€not€prosecutorial€mistake."€Ï198€F.3d€at€1304.<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier Regular ËÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àRiverdale€Mills€disputes€the€log€of€these€samples,Ð ° Ðarguing€that€the€readings€were€actually€in€the€"7"€range,€but€thatÏthe€number€"7"€originally€written€in€the€log€was€subsequentlyÏaltered€to€appear€to€be€a€"2."3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)vÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<õÑ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular š Ý ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àIn€requiring€this€element€of€malice€or€improper€motive,Ð ° Ðwe€recognize€that€our€construction€of€"vexatious"€here€differs€from€Ïthe€way€the€term€is€construed€in€the€Title€VII€context.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡Xîò‹‹‹ÔTangóóÐ @ Ðv.€òòRhode€Island€Ô_ÔDep'tÔ_Ô€of€Elderly€Affairsóó,€163€F.3d€7,€13€(1st€Cir.Ð X Ð1998)€("A€district€court€may€in€its€discretion€award€attorney'sÏfees€to€a€prevailing€defendant€.€.€.€upon€a€finding€that€theÏplaintiff's€action€was€frivolous,€unreasonable,€or€withoutÏfoundation,€even€though€not€brought€in€subjective€bad€faith.")Ï(quoting€òòÔ_ÔChristiansburgÔ_Ô€Garment€Co.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔEEOCÔ_Ôóó,€434€U.S.€412,€421Ð ð @ Ð(1978))Ô#†‹îò‹‹Xîò¼#Ô.€€Like€the€òòÔ_ÔSherburneÔ_Ôóó€court,€we€conclude€that€the€contextÐ ¸   Ðdiffers€in€material€ways,€most€importantly€in€that,€because€theÏHyde€Amendment€addresses€fees€in€the€criminal€context,€CongressÏenacted€it€against€a€background€in€which€courts€have€no€inherentÏpower€to€award€fees.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔSherburneÔ_Ôóó,€Ô‡Xîò‹‹‹îòÔ€249€F.3d€atÔ#†‹îò‹‹Xîòº#Ô€1127€n.5.Ð Ø(  Ðà  àDefendants€also€point€to€common€law€awards€of€attorneys'€fees,Ïwhere€Ô‡Xîò‹‹‹îòÔ"vexatious"€litigation€need€not€always€require€subjective€badÐ h¸  Ðfaith€in€order€to€justify€a€fee€award.€€òòSeeóó€òòLocal€285óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔNonotuckÔ_ÔÐ 0€  ÐRes.€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.óó,€64€F.3d€735,€737„38€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(holding€thatÐ øH  Ðsubjective€bad€faith€is€not€a€prerequisite€to€a€fee€award€under€theÏcommon€law)Ô#†‹îò‹‹Xîòx#ÔÔ‡Xîò‹‹‹îòÔ;€òòbut€cf.óó€òòRivera€Moralesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBenitezÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔRexachÔ_Ôóó,€541€F.2dÐ ˆØ Ð882€(1st€Cir.€1976)€(overturning€common€law€fee€award€where€thereÏwas€no€finding€that€defendants€acted€in€bad€faith).€€This€relianceÏon€occasional€cases€from€a€civil€context€which€did€not€requireÏsubjective€bad€faith€ignores€the€peculiar€concern,€unique€to€theÏcriminal€context,€that€the€drafters€of€the€Hyde€Amendment€had€toÐ pÀ  Ðavoid€chilling€legitimate€prosecutions.€€In€addition,€common€lawÏfee€awards€involve€a€full„blown€equitable€analysis€and€depend€onÏthe€discretion€of€the€court,€a€requirement€overlooked€in€theÏattempt€to€draw€a€parallel€to€the€Hyde€Amendment€awards€at€issueÏhere.Ô#†‹îò‹‹XîòW#Ô WÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àThe€district€court€also€cited€to€two€differentÐ ° Ðdefinitions€of€"vexatious"€from€Black's€Law€Dictionary:€oneÏdefining€vexatious€as€"without€reasonable€or€probable€cause,"€theÏother€defining€a€"vexatious"€charge€as€one€that€is€calculated€toÏ"harass,€disquiet,€or€annoy."€106€F.€Supp.€2d€at€179€(citing€ÏBlack's€Law€Dictionary€1565€(6th€ed.€1990)).ò òó ó(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àøÀ Ý ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€has€expressly€rejected€an€inquiry€intoÐ ° Ðsubjective€intent€in€deciding€questions€of€official€immunity€in€theÏlaw€enforcement€context,€replacing€it€with€an€objective€inquiryÏinto€the€legal€reasonableness€of€the€official€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarlowóóÐ X Ðv.€òòFitzgeraldóó,€457€U.S.€800,€815„20€(1982);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔWhrenÔ_Ôóó€v.Ð Ð  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806,€811„13€(1996)€(rejecting€subjectiveÐ ˜è Ðintent€test€in€Fourth€Amendment€context).€€It€would€be€odd€ifÏagainst€this€background€Congress€intended€an€inquiry€into€theÏsubjective€motivations€of€prosecutors€under€the€vexatiousnessÏstandard€of€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€We€do€not€address€whether€the€"badÏfaith"€test€requires€a€subjective€inquiry.TABLE A Ñ e Ñ ÁÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àThe€term€pH€stands€for€a€measure€of€acidity€andÐ ° Ðalkalinity€on€a€logarithmic€scale€from€0€to€14,€with€7.0Ïrepresenting€neutrality,€numbers€below€7€representing€increasingÏdegrees€of€acidity,€and€numbers€above€7€representing€increasingÏalkalinity.€€Each€whole€number€step€away€from€7€represents€a€ten„¼fold€increase€in€acidity€or€alkalinity,€such€that€a€sample€with€aÏpH€of€4.0€s.u.€is€ten€times€more€acidic€than€a€sample€with€a€pH€ofÏ5.0€s.u.,€and€so€forth. gÝ ƒÞ+$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€îòЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€îò‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àWe€bypass€the€question€of€whether€one€vexatious€raidÐ ° Ðwould€render€the€pursuit€of€a€criminal€case€"vexatious."€ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þ‹Ð‹dÐd=ÓÑTRXà3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ‡‹Ç‹‹‹ÔÔ‡°¤q°‹‹ÇÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†‹Ç‹°°¤q#ÔÔ‡„^Á„‹‹ÇÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†„$w„„„^Áç#ÔÔ‡„Ga„„„$wÔÔ#†‹ëÆ ‹„„Ga#ÔÔ‡X]è X ‹‹ëÆÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ4ÓÌÌßA€]) °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌÔ#†Xþ‹‹ XX]èð#ÔNo.€00„2238Ð K › ÐNo.€00„2239ÌÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÌÌà@ ìàAppellant€and€Cross„Appellee,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@Ø Ø ìàJAMES€M.€Ô_ÔKNOTTÔ_Ô,€SR.;€Ô_ÔRIVERDALEÔ_Ô€MILLS€CORP.,ˆÌÌà@Ø Ø ìàDefendants,€Appellees€and€Cross„Appellants.ˆÌÌßA€]) °°` dE<r` AßÐ sà ÐÌà@$ $ ìàAPPEALS€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURT€ˆÌÓ  ÓFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSÌÓðÓÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Nathaniel€M.€Gorton,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ¢ò ÐÌßA€]) °°` dE<1` AßÐ 2‚ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Torruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð ™é ÐCyr,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð a±  Ðand€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð )y! ÐÌÌßA€]) °°` dE<€ ` AßÐ  Ñ$ ÐÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌà  àòòJohn€L.€Ô_ÔSmeltzerÔ_Ôóó,€Trial€Attorney,€Environment€&€NaturalÐ X!¨& ÐResources€DivÔ#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹2#ÔÔ‡Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹Ôision,€United€States€Department€of€Justice,€with€whomÐ  "p' ÐòòJohn€C.€Ô_ÔCrudenÔ_Ôóó,€Acting€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Ô#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹Ú#ÔÔ‡Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹ÔòòPatty€Ô_ÔMerkampÔ_ÔÐ è"8( ÐÔ_ÔStemlerÔ_Ôóó,€Trial€Attorney,€Criminal€Division,Ô#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹¿ #ÔÔ‡Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹Ô€and€òòDavid€M.€Ô_ÔUhlmannÔ_ÔóóÐ °#) Ðand€òòÔ_ÔJaredÔ_Ô€Goldsteinóó,€Trial€Attorneys,€Environment€&€NaturalÐ x$È* ÐResources€DivÔ#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹” #ÔÔ‡Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹ÔisionÔ#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹© #ÔÔ‡Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹Ô,€were€on€brief,€for€appellant€and€cross„Ð @% + Ðappellee.ÌÌà  àòòWarren€G.€Milleróó,€with€whom€òòHenry€T.€Dunkeróó€and€òòÔ_ÔJamyÔ_Ô€B.Ð ˜'è". ÐBuchananóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellees€and€cross„appellants.Ð `(°#/ ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ] ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ¸*&2 ‹‹ÐÓÓñ©3ñÐ SI+l&3 `â@37083„„‰`â@‰‹‹SÐñ©3ññ©3ñÐ 0&+l&3 „„‹‹0Ðñ©3ñÌñ¦3ñJuñ¦3ññ§3ññ¦3ñ;yñ¦3ññ§3ññ¨3ñly€12,€2001ñ¨3ñÌâ âÐ SID¬,ü'6" `â@37083 `â@ ‹‹SÐâ âÐ," +l&7 ? ,ÐÔ_ÔÙ* !ÙÔ#†‹þ‹‹‹Xþ‹ð #ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€þ‹X‹dÈ‹‹dÈ8ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÑ€#ïW ÑÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xþ‹‹‹‹þ‹ÔÔ‡XóC X‹Xþ‹ÔÔ‡ˆGª ˆ XXóCÔÑ€ ÑÝ ƒÿÝÝ  Ýà ` àò òòòóóÔ#†ˆþ‹‹ ˆˆGªÞ#ÔLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€is€a€case€of€first€impressionÐ ° Ðfor€this€court€as€to€the€standardsÔ#†Xþ‹‹‹ˆþ‹ý#ÔÔ‡ˆþ‹‹‹Xþ‹Ô€for€awarding€attorneys'€feesÐ à Ðagainst€the€United€StatesÔ#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò#ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ€for€its€initiation€of€criminalÐ  p Ðproceedings,€as€provided€for€under€the€Hyde€AmendmentÔ#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò#ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ,€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ˆîòÈ#ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔPub.L.€No.Ð °  Ð105„119,€111€Stat.€2440,€2519€(1997),€òòreprinted€inóó€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò #ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ18€U.S.C.€ððÐ @  Ð3006A€(statutory€note)Ô#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò¦#ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ.€€The€district€court€awarded€$68,726.00€inÐ Ð   Ðfees€to€Riverdale€Mills,€which€had€been€one€defendant€in€a€criminalÏprosecution€for€violation€of€the€Clean€Water€Act,€and€denied€feesÏto€James€Knott,€the€other€defendant.€€The€government€voluntarilyÏdismissed€the€action€after€the€district€court€suppressed€some€ofÏthe€prosecutionððs€evidence.€€The€district€court€awarded€fees€on€theÏgrounds€that€the€governmentððs€prosecution€was€"vexatious."€€WeÏreverse€the€award€of€fees€to€Riverdale€Mills€and€affirm€the€denialÏof€fees€to€Knott.Ìà@tt)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ à0 Ðà ` àRiverdale€Mills€Corporation€and€its€principal€owner,ÏJames€Knott,€operate€a€plant€in€Northbridge,€Massachusetts,€thatÏmanufactures€plastic„coated€steel€wire€mesh.€€The€productionÏinvolves€two€processes,€one€producing€rather€acidic€wastewater,€andÏthe€other€producing€quite€caustic€(i.e.,€alkaline)€wastewater.€ÏÔ#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò!#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔRiverdale€Mills€ultimately€discharges€this€industrial€waste€intoÐ $à( Ðthe€public€sewer€owned€by€the€Town€of€Northbridge.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòü#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€€Ð  &p!* Ðà ` àThe€Clean€Water€Act€prohibits€the€indirect€discharge€ofÏpollutants€into€the€waters€of€the€United€States€through€publiclyÏowned€treatment€works.€€33€U.S.C.€ðð€1317(b)(1).€€The€implementingÏregulations€for€the€Act€prohibit€the€discharge€of€wastewater€withÐ `,°'2 Ða€pH€below€5.0€standard€units€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòÅ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ("s.u.")׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò\#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔinto€publicly€owned€sewerÐ ° Ðsystems.€€40€C.F.R.€ðð€403.5(b)(2).€€Any€person€who€"knowingly"Ïviolates€these€standards€is€subject€to€felony€prosecution.€€33ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1319(c)(2)(A).Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòú#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔÐ ` ° Ðà ` àRiverdale€Mills's€state€permit€for€discharging€its€wasteÏinto€the€public€sewer€states€that€Riverdale€Mills€will€ensure€thatÏthe€wastewater€falls€within€acceptable€limits€by€combining€the€twoÏstreams€inside€the€plant€so€that€the€caustic€water€neutralizes€theÏacidic€water,€and€then€further€neutralizing€the€waste€by€adding€aÏcaustic€soda.€€Following€this€pretreatment,Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îò#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€on€the€design€in€theÐ À Ðpermit,€the€now„combined€wastewaters€would€flow€intermittentlyÏthrough€an€effluent€pipe€to€a€manhole€outside€the€building€onÏRiverdale€Street€(Manhole€#1),€where€it€joins€a€sewer€pipe.€€TheÏdischarge€then€would€flow€through€that€sewer€pipe€approximately€100Ïyards€to€a€second€manhole€(Manhole€#2),€where€the€pipe€joins€theÏpublic€sewer€line.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò×#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔÐ  p Ðà ` àActing€on€an€anonymous€tip€that€this€pretreatment€systemÏwas€not€in€operation,Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îò˜#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€two€EPA€civil€inspectors€went€to€RiverdaleÐ @" ÐMills€for€an€unannounced€inspectionÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòI #ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòî #ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔon€October€21,€1997.€TheÐ Ð $ Ðdistrict€court€determined€that€Knott€consented€to€the€inspection,Ïbut€determined€on€disputed€facts€that€his€consent€was€qualified€byÐ ð#@( Ðthe€express€condition€that€the€EPA€inspectors€be€accompanied€byÏRiverdale€Mills€representatives€during€the€entire€course€of€theirÏinspection.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò1!#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€€Knott€then€accompanied€the€inspectors€to€Manhole€#1,Ð Ð  Ðwhere€they€took€two€initial€samples€(neither€below€pH€5.0€s.u.)€andÏobserved€only€an€intermittent€discharge.€€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòÆ"#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔBecause€of€theÐ ð @ Ðintermittent€nature€of€the€discharge€flow,€the€inspectors€thenÏallegedly€informed€Knott€that€they€would€have€to€conduct€periodicÏsampling€throughout€the€day.€€The€group€then€embarked€on€a€tour€ofÏthe€facility,€during€which€the€EPA€inspectors€discovered€that,Ïcontrary€to€Knott's€alleged€statement€that€morning,€the€wastewaterÏtreatment€facility€at€Riverdale€Mills€was€not€in€operation.€ÏApparently,€the€two€wastewater€streams€were€not€being€mixed€in€theÏtreatment€facility€as€intended€because€a€valve€was€turned€to€theÏwrong€position,€and€also€the€tank€where€caustic€soda€was€to€beÏadded€to€the€wastewater€was€being€bypassedÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòÁ##ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ.Ð à Ðà ` àIn€the€early€afternoon,€the€inspectors€returned€toÏManhole€#1,€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îò–&#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔon€the€street€in€front€of€the€plant€and€in€the€plainÐ °  Ðview€of€Riverdale€Mills€employees.€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò9'#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€There€they€took€a€series€ofÐ @" Ðsamples,€and€thoseÔ#†Xîò‹‹‹îòç'#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€additional€samples€yielded€pH€readings€rangingÐ Ð $ Ðfrom€2.19€to€7.48€s.u.,€with€thirteen€of€the€fourteen€samplesÏshowing€extremely€low€pH€readings€(between€2.19€and€2.59€s.u.).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòl(#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòԀРð#@( ÐThe€district€court€determined€that€the€EPA€inspectors€were€notÏaccompanied€by€a€Riverdale€Mills€representative€for€this€sampling.€Ð '`", ÐThe€inspectors€then€returned€to€the€plant€and€a€Riverdale€MillsÏemployee€completed€their€tour€of€the€facilities.€€The€EPAÏinspectors€also€gave€a€split€sample€from€one€of€their€afternoonÏsamples€to€the€employee,€who€signed€the€chain€of€custody€form€forÏit.€€At€the€EPAððs€closing€conference€with€Knott,€they€discussed€theÏlow€pH€discharges,€and€Knott€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòÂ)#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔinformed€the€EPA€inspectors€that€heÐ € Ð  Ðowned€Riverdale€Street€and€he€claimed€ownership€of€the€sewer€lineÏunder€the€street.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò,#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àÔ#†Xîò‹‹‹îòÞ,#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔAfter€leaving€the€plant,€the€EPA€inspectors€went€toÐ 0€  ÐManhole€#2.€€This€is€where€the€"private"€sewer€line€joined€theÏmunicipal€line,€according€to€Knott's€statement€at€the€meeting.Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòC-#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòJ.#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ P  ÐThere€the€inspectors€noted€a€second€residential€sewer€line€alsoÏjoined€at€the€manhole,€seven€feet€below€the€Riverdale€Mills€line.€ÏAccordingly,€they€took€three€different€samples€at€this€site.€€OneÏwas€from€the€discharge€of€the€residential€line,€which€the€EPA€saysÏyielded€a€pH€of€approximately€7€s.u.€€One€was€from€water€standingÏin€a€trough€at€the€manhole,€which€the€EPA€says€yielded€a€pH€aroundÏ7€s.u.€€The€last€one€was€from€the€discharge€flowing€from€theÏRiverdale€Mills€line,€which€the€EPA€says€yielded€a€pH€of€around€4Ïs.u.€€In€their€field€log,€the€number€"4"€for€this€final€measurementÏappears€to€be€written€over€a€"7."€€(The€district€court€laterÏconcluded€that€the€recorded€entry€for€that€sample€had€been€alteredÏfrom€its€actual€reading€of€7€s.u.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò.#ÔÔ‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ)€Ð '`", Ðà ` àBased€on€this€information,€the€EPA€criminal€divisionÏobtained€a€federal€search€warrant€and€conducted€a€second€inspectionÏon€November€7,€1997.€€A€large€number€of€samples€were€taken€atÐ À+'2 ÐManhole€#1.€€Most€had€a€pH€below€5.0€s.u.€and€the€samples€worsenedÏ„„€that€is,€became€even€more€acidic€„„€as€the€day€progressed.€€EPAÏagents€also€took€seven€samples€in€the€morning€at€Manhole€#2,€andÏall€had€pH€readings€around€5.0€or€6.0€s.u.€€Again,€the€agentsÏobserved€that€the€required€pretreatment€system€at€the€RiverdaleÏMills€plant€was€largely€not€operational;€although€on€that€day€theÏtwo€wastewater€streams€were€mixing€in€the€plant,€the€process€addingÏcaustic€soda€was€still€being€bypassed.€€Plant€employees€told€theÏEPA€that€the€pretreatment€system€had€not€been€in€operation€sinceÏsometime€in€the€spring€of€1997,€and€that€Knott€was€aware€thatÏwastewater€was€being€discharged€without€pretreatment.Ô#†Xîò‹‹ˆîòÕ1#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔ€€Ð P  Ðà ` àIn€July€1998,€the€EPA€executed€a€second€search€warrant€toÏmeasure€the€effects€of€groundwater€infiltration€between€Manhole€#1Ïand€Manhole€#2.€€This€was€done€in€response€to€Knott's€claim€that€heÏowned€the€intervening€sewer€line€and€that€by€the€time€theÏwastewater€reached€the€public€sewer€at€Manhole€#2,€groundwaterÏinfiltration€inevitably€brought€it€within€the€legal€limit.€€TheÏEPA's€expert€concluded€that€even€making€assumptions€favorable€toÏKnott,€any€wastewater€with€a€pH€below€3.0€s.u.€at€the€first€manholeÏwould€reach€the€sewer€line€at€the€second€manhole€with€a€pH€belowÏ5.0€s.u.ÌÔ#†Xîò‹‹‹îòÅ5#Ôà ` àOn€August€12,€1998,€a€federal€grand€jury€indicted€KnottÐ €%Ð * Ðand€Riverdale€Mills€on€two€counts€of€violating€the€Clean€Water€ActÏby€knowingly€discharging€industrial€wastewater€with€a€pH€below€5.0Ïs.u.€into€a€publicly€owned€treatment€works€on€October€21€andÏNovember€7,€1997.€€Following€the€indictment,€both€the€U.S.Ð À+'2 ÐAttorney's€office€and€the€regional€EPA€issued€standard€pressÏreleases€announcing€the€indictment€and€its€allegations.€€Ìà ` àOn€October€14,€1998,€Knott€and€Riverdale€Mills€moved€toÏsuppress€evidence€from€the€afternoon€sampling€on€October€21,€1997Ïas€the€result€of€an€unlawful€search,€and€also€to€suppress€theÏsampling€obtained€through€the€November€7€search€warrant,€as€theÏfruit€of€the€October€21€sampling.€€On€February€16,€1999,€theÏdistrict€court€suppressed€the€sampling€results€from€the€afternoonÏof€October€21,€1997,€finding€that€the€EPA€inspectors€exceeded€theÏscope€of€Knott's€consent€when€they€sampled€the€wastewater€streamÏwithout€a€Riverdale€Mills€representative€present.€€However,€theÏdistrict€court€declined€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€onÏNovember€7,€reasoning€that€even€though€the€basis€of€the€warrant€wasÏin€part€the€October€21€afternoon€sampling,€the€agents€acted€in€goodÏfaith€executing€the€warrant.€€Ìà ` àThe€government€sought€leave€of€court€to€dismiss€theÏindictment€without€prejudice€on€April€23,€1999,€because€in€theÏcourse€of€preparing€for€trial,€it€determined€that€the€suppressionÏhad€substantially€weakened€its€case€and€raised€a€question€as€toÏwhether€it€could€make€a€sufficiently€compelling€case€to€the€jury€toÏmeet€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€remaining€evidence.€€Leave€of€theÏcourt€to€dismiss€the€indictment€without€prejudice€was€granted€byÏthe€district€court€on€May€6,€1999.Ìà ` àFollowing€the€dismissal€of€the€indictment,€Knott€andÏRiverdale€Mills€filed€a€motion€to€recover€reasonable€attorneys'Ïfees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€The€district€court€awardedÐ À+'2 Ðattorneys'€fees€to€Riverdale€Mills€as€a€prevailing€party׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€because,Ð ° Ðin€the€view€of€the€court,€while€the€prosecution€was€neitherÏfrivolous€nor€in€bad€faith,€it€was€"clearly€vexatious"€within€theÏmeaning€of€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKnottóó,€106€F.Ð ` ° ÐSupp.€2d€174,€180€(D.€Mass.€2000).€€The€district€court,€relying€inÏpart€on€the€Eleventh€Circuit's€decision€in€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð € Ð  ÐòòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€1293€(11th€Cir.€1999),€held€that€a€defendantÐ `  Ðseeking€fees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment€must€show€that€theÏgovernment's€legal€position€was€asserted€"in€bad€faith€or€withoutÏany€foundation€or€basis€for€belief€that€it€might€prevail"€and€thusÏamounted€to€"prosecutorial€misconduct."׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€106€F.Supp.2d€at€179Ð P  Ð(quoting€òòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€at€1303„04).òòóó€€The€district€court€restedÐ à0 Ðits€conclusion€that€the€prosecution€here€was€"vexatious"€on€theÏcourtððs€belief€that€the€government€did€not€have€"any€credibleÏevidence"€to€support€the€accusation€that€the€defendants€dischargedÏwaste€with€a€pH€below€5.0€s.u.€into€the€public€sewer.€€òòId.óó€€To€theÐ  p Ðcontrary,€the€court€concluded,€the€samples€taken€at€the€secondÏmanhole,€"the€point€of€discharge€into€the€public€sewer,"€showedÏthat€Riverdale€Mills€"was€òònotóó€in€violation€of€the€Clean€Water€Act."€Ð Ð $ ÐòòId.óó€ò òó ó€The€district€court€did€not,€however,€find€that€the€agents€orÐ `"°& Ðprosecutors€in€this€case€acted€maliciously,€or€with€any€particularÏpersonal€motive€to€vex€the€defendants.€€The€court€rested€insteadÏsimply€on€the€purported€absence€of€credible€evidence,€though€itÏalso€discussed€some€alleged€misconduct€in€the€collection€of€samplesÏand€the€conduct€of€searches.€€Accordingly,€the€court€awarded€feesÏin€the€sum€of€Ô‡ˆîò‹‹XîòÔ$68,726.00Ô#†Xîò‹‹ˆîò:H#Ô€to€the€company€against€the€United€StatesÐ € Ð  Ðunder€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€òòId.óó€at€181.€€The€court€denied€fees€toÐ `  ÐKnott€because€his€net€worth€exceeded€$2€million,€reasoning€that€theÏlimitations€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412(d)€apply€to€the€Hyde€Amendment.€ÏòòId.óó€at€178.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€government€appeals€this€fee€award,€arguing€(1)€thatÏthe€court€applied€the€wrong€legal€standard€in€definingÏvexatiousness,€as€it€did€not€find€any€malice€or€intent€to€harass€inÏthe€prosecution,€but€rather€found€only€that€the€prosecution€lackedÏfoundation;€(2)€that€the€district€court's€conclusion€that€theÏprosecution€lacked€foundation€was€in€clear€error,€as€the€governmentÏhad€ample€evidence€to€prove€the€violations€prior€to€the€suppressionÏruling,€and€indeed€it€could€have€pursued€the€charges€even€on€theÏevidence€that€remained€after€the€court's€suppression€order;€and€(3)Ïthat€the€court€erred€in€identifying€certain€isolated€acts€ofÏgovernment€agents€as€evidence€of€vexatiousness.€€Ìà ` àKnott,€in€turn,€challenges€the€district€court's€rulingÏagainst€him,€arguing€that€he€could€seek€an€award€under€the€HydeÏAmendment€pursuant€to€the€procedures€and€limitations€of€28€U.S.C.Ïðð€2412(b)€instead€of€ðð€2412(d),€thereby€eliminating€the€net€worthÏlimitation€and€entitling€him€to€recovery.Ð À+'2 Ðò òÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ ° ÐÓöMÓà ` àWe€initially€determine€the€legal€issue€raised€in€Knott'sÏcross„appeal€from€the€district€court's€dismissal€of€his€claim€forÏfees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment€on€the€ground€that€his€net€worthÏrenders€him€ineligible€for€an€award€of€fees.€€At€issue€is€whetherÏthe€Hyde€AmendmentÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò×M#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ's€incorporation€of€the€"procedures€andÐ Ð   Ðlimitations"€of€the€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòjO#ÔEqual€Access€to€Justice€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412Ô‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ,Ð `°  Ðencompasses€all€of€the€avenues€to€relief€contained€in€ðð€2412,€orÏsimply€refers€to€the€procedures€and€limitations€imposed€in€ððÏ2412(d).Ìà ` àThe€Hyde€Amendment€provides€that€fee€awards€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò,P#Ô"shall€beÐ  ð Ðgranted€pursuant€to€the€procedures€and€limitations€(but€not€theÏburden€of€proof)€provided€for€an€award€under€section€2412€of€[theÏEqual€Access€to€Justice€Act]€.€.€.€."€€111€Stat.€at€2519.€Ô‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€SectionÐ P  Ð2412€of€the€EAJA,€however,€provides€for€the€award€of€attorneys'Ïfees€in€two€separate€subsections,€each€containing€differentÏprocedures€and€limitations.Ìà ` àEAJA€Subsection€2412(b)€provides€for€the€recovery€ofÏattorneys'€fees€against€the€United€States,€not€by€supplying€anÏindependent€basis€for€recovering€fees,€but€instead€by€subjectingÏthe€United€States€to€other€existing€provisions€which€allow€recoveryÏof€fees€against€private€parties€in€the€civil€context.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò#R#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€€It€providesÐ Ð% !* Ðthat€"Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòTT#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔa€court€may€award€reasonable€fees€and€expenses€of€attorneys,Ð `'°", Ðin€addition€to€[costs],€to€the€prevailing€party€in€any€civil€actionÏbrought€by€or€against€the€United€States€.€.€.€.€The€United€StatesÏshall€be€liable€for€such€fees€and€expenses€to€the€same€extent€thatÐ ,`'2 Ðany€other€party€would€be€liable€under€the€common€law€or€under€theÏterms€of€any€statute€which€specifically€provides€for€such€anÏaward."€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412(b).€€Awards€under€ðð€2412(b)Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò¾T#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€are€limited,Ð Ð  Ðof€course,€by€the€standards€of€the€common€law€or€the€terms€of€theÏincorporated€statutory€provision€upon€which€the€award€is€based,Ïjust€as€an€award€against€a€private€party€would€be,€but€ðð€2412(b)Ïitself€does€not€otherwise€provide€procedures€for€or€limitationsÏupon€fee€awards€under€the€EAJA.Ìà ` àEAJA€Subsection€2412(d)€supplies€an€additionalÏsubstantive€basis€for€a€civil€party€to€recover€fees€against€theÏUnited€States.€€It€provides€that€"Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòèV#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔa€court€shall€award€[fees€andÐ P  Ðexpenses]€to€a€prevailing€party€.€.€.€unless€the€court€finds€thatÏthe€position€of€the€United€States€was€substantially€justified."€€28ÏU.S.C.€ðð€2412(d)(1)(A).€€Unlike€ðð€2412(b),€ðð€2412(d)€itselfÏsubjects€fee€awards€to€certain€procedures€and€limitations.€€AnÏindividual€may€not€recover€fees€under€subsection€(d)€if€hisÏindividual€net€worth€exceeds€$2€million€(nor€can€a€corporation,€ifÏits€net€worth€exceeds€$7€million€and€it€has€more€than€500Ïemployees).€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412(d)(2)(B).€€In€addition,Ð Ð $ Ðsubsection€(d)€caps€the€hourly€rate€at€which€an€award€may€beÏgranted€at€$125.€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412(d)(2)(A).€€Knott€concedes€thatÏhe€would€be€ineligible€under€the€$2€million€net€worth€limitation,Ïbut€contests€its€applicability.Ìà ` àThe€district€court€rejected€Knott's€argument€that€he€isÏnot€subject€to€the€net€worth€limitation€or€the€cap€on€hourly€ratesÏbecause€defendants€may€elect€to€proceed€under€either€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ À+'2 ÐÑ#ïW Ñâ #âÑe°Ñâ #âÑ  Ñ2412(b)€or€(d).€€The€district€court€concluded€that€the€proceduresÏand€limitations€of€EAJA€ðð€2412(d)€applied€to€applications€for€feesÏunder€the€Hyde€Amendment€for€two€main€reasons.€€First,€the€districtÏcourt€reasoned€that€allowing€defendants€to€elect€to€proceed€underÏðð€2412(b)€would€effectively€read€the€clause€"under€the€proceduresÏand€limitations€of€section€2412"€out€of€the€Hyde€Amendment.€ÏSecond,€the€district€court,€confronted€with€two€interpretations€ofÏthe€statute,€construed€it€narrowly€in€accord€with€the€principleÏthat€waivers€of€sovereign€immunity€are€to€be€construed€narrowly.€Ð 0€  ÐòòSeeóó€106€F.€Supp.€2d€at€177„78.€€Ð À Ðà ` àThe€district€court€was€correct€to€require€fee€applicantsÏto€meet€the€eligibility€requirements€of€EAJA€ðð€2412(d).€€The€HydeÏAmendment€expressly€adopts€"procedures€and€limitations"€from€theÏEAJA.€€We€hold€that€this€reference€incorporates€the€"procedures€andÏlimitations"€contained€in€EAJA€ðð€2412(d).€€òòAccordóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€vÐ à ÐòòRanger€Elec.€Communications,€Inc.óó,€210€F.3d€627,€632„33€(6th€Cir.Ð  p Ð2000).€€Ìà ` àKnott's€suggested€reading€of€the€Hyde€Amendment€undercutsÏthe€language€of€the€provision€and€policy€concerns€underlying€theÏincorporation€of€these€procedures€and€limitations.€€If€defendantsÏcould€elect€to€proceed€under€ðð€2412(b),€as€Knott€argues,€it€is€notÏclear€that€the€Hyde€Amendment'sÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòY#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€incorporation€of€"procedures€andÐ €%Ð * Ðlimitations"€from€the€EAJA€would€have€any€practical€effect.€€InÏorder€to€give€meaningful€effect€to€the€plain€language€of€the€HydeÏAmendment,€then,€the€incorporation€is€best€read€to€refer€to€theÏlimitations€contained€in€EAJA€ðð€2412(d).€€Ð À+'2 Ðà ` àThis€is€particularly€so€given€that,€unlike€EAJA€ððÏ2412(d),€EAJA€ðð€2412(b)€does€not€supply€an€independent€substantiveÏground€upon€which€to€recover€fees,€instead€directing€applicants€toÏother€bases€providing€a€remedy€of€attorneys'€fees,€including€theirÏprocedures€and€limitations,€and€simply€subjecting€the€United€StatesÏto€the€same€obligations€regarding€attorneys'€fees€as€privateÏparties.€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòPc#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€BecauseÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòcf#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€EAJA€ðð€2412(b)€does€not€provide€a€complete€andÐ `  Ðindependent€ground€for€a€fee€award€but€instead€affords€relief€onlyÏby€reference€to€otherwise€existing€avenues€to€recover€feesÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò­f#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ,€itÐ 0€  Ðwould€create€a€peculiar€circularityÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò³g#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€to€allow€a€defendant€relying€onÐ À Ðthe€Hyde€Amendment€as€the€substantive€basis€of€a€request€forÏattorneys'€fees€to€elect€to€proceed€through€EAJA€ðð€2412(b)€in€orderÏto€avoid€the€limitations€imposed€in€EAJA€ðð€2412(d),€given€thatÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò1h#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€theÐ pÀ ÐHyde€Amendment€itself€incorporates€the€procedures€and€limitationsÏof€the€EAJA.€€òòSeeóó€òòRanger€Elec.€Communicationsóó,€210€F.3d€at€633.€€Ð à Ðà ` àFinally,€the€fact€that€the€Hyde€Amendment€waivesÏsovereign€immunity€and€the€policy€concerns€regarding€the€impact€ofÏawarding€fees€in€the€criminal€context,€as€reflected€in€theÏlegislative€history€of€the€Amendment,€bothÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòmi#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€counsel€in€favor€ofÐ Ð $ Ðnarrowly€construing€the€Amendment,€and€therefore€incorporating€theÏprocedures€and€limitations€of€EAJA€ðð€2412(d).€€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòQk#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔIn€order€to€makeÐ ð#@( Ðbest€sense€of€the€language€of€the€statute,€then,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€procedures€and€limitations€referenced€are€those€laid€out€in€ððÏ2412(d).Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò1l#ÔÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÐ 0*€%0 ÐòòÓFmÓóóà ` àWe€next€address€the€government's€appeal€from€the€award€ofÐ ° Ðâ âattorneys'€fees€in€favor€of€Riverdale€Mills.ÌA.€€òòThe€Hyde€Amendment€Legal€StandardÐ Ð  Ðóóà ` àCongress€enacted€the€Hyde€Amendment€in€1997€in€responseÐ ` ° Ðto€perceived€instances€of€prosecutorial€abuse€by€the€United€States.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€1293,€1299„1303€(11th€Cir.Ð € Ð  Ð1999)€(reviewing€legislative€history).€€The€purpose€of€theÏAmendment€was€to€allow€defendants€to€recover€attorney's€fees€andÏcosts€in€cases€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€òòId.óó€€The€provisionÐ 0€  Ðprovides€that€a€district€court€may€award€attorneys'€fees€and€otherÏcosts€to€a€prevailing€defendant€"where€the€court€finds€that€theÏposition€of€the€United€States€was€vexatious,€frivolous,€or€in€badÏfaith,€unless€the€court€finds€that€special€circumstances€make€suchÏan€award€unjust.€€Such€awards€shall€be€granted€pursuant€to€theÏprocedures€and€limitations€(but€not€the€burden€of€proof)€providedÏfor€an€award€under€[the€Equal€Access€to€Justice€Act]€.€.€.€."€€€111ÏStat.€at€2519.Ìà ` àThe€Hyde€Amendment€was€patterned€after€the€Equal€AccessÏto€Justice€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412,€which€provides€for€an€award€ofÏattorney's€fees€against€the€United€States€in€civil€cases.€€The€HydeÏAmendment€differs€in€at€least€two€important€respects.€€First,€itÏraises€the€standard€for€awarding€fees.€€The€Hyde€Amendment€allowsÏrecovery€by€prevailing€criminal€defendants€only€where€the€positionÏof€the€United€States€was€"vexatious,€frivolous,€or€in€bad€faith,"Ïin€contrast€to€the€EAJA,€which€authorizes€an€award€to€a€prevailingÏcivil€party€in€any€case€where€the€position€of€the€United€States€wasÐ À+'2 Ðnot€"substantially€justified,"€òòseeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2412(d)(1)(A).€Ð ° ÐIndeed,€the€legislative€history€of€the€Hyde€Amendment€shows€that€inÏdrafting€the€provision,€Congress€considered€and€rejected€as€tooÏeasily€met€both€the€"not€substantially€justified"€standard€of€theÏEAJA€and€a€standard€(modeled€after€the€Firearms€Owners'€ProtectionÏAct€of€1986,€òòseeóó€18€U.S.C.€ðð€924(d)(2)(B))€which€would€have€awardedÐ € Ð  Ðfees,€inter€alia,€where€the€United€States'€position€was€"withoutÏfoundation."€€òòSeeóó€òòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€at€1301„02.€€Second,€unlike€theÐ  ð  ÐEAJA,€the€Hyde€Amendment€places€the€burden€of€proof€on€theÏdefendant€to€demonstrate€that€the€government's€position€wasÏ"vexatious,"€"frivolous,"€or€"in€bad€faith."€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Ð P  Ðà ` àIn€construing€and€applying€statutory€terms,€we€begin€byÏexamining€the€language€of€the€statute€itself.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBaileyóó€v.Ð pÀ ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€516€U.S.€137,€144€(1995).€€The€words€"vexatious,Ð P Ðfrivolous,€or€in€bad€faith"€are€not€defined€in€the€statute.€€InÏsuch€circumstances,€courts€typically€read€statutory€terms€to€conveyÏtheir€ordinary€meaning,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€at€1298€Ð °  Ð(citing€òòChapmanóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€500€U.S.€453,€462€(1991)),Ð @" Ðincluding€as€reflected€in€dictionary€definitions,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð Ð $ ÐòòBuckhannon€Bd.€&€Care€Home,€Inc.óó€v.€òòWest€Virginia€Dep't€of€HealthÐ `"°& Ð&€Human€Servs.óó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€121€S.€Ct.€1835,€1839€(2001)€(relyingÐ ð#@( Ðon€definition€of€"prevailing€party"€in€Black's€Law€Dictionary);€òòid.óóÐ €%Ð * Ðat€1846€(Scalia,€J.,€concurring).€€ò òó óBlack's€Law€Dictionary€definesÐ '`", Ðthe€term€"vexatious"€„„€the€term€at€issue€in€this€case€„„€to€meanÏ"without€reasonable€or€probable€cause€or€excuse;€harassing;Ïannoying."€€Black's€Law€Dictionary€1559€(7th€ed.€1999).€€It€furtherÐ À+'2 Ðdefines€"vexatious€suit"€to€mean€a€"lawsuit€instituted€maliciouslyÏand€without€good€cause."€€òòId.óó€€òòòòóóóóStandard€English„languageÐ @ Ðdictionaries€give€the€term€similar€meaning.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Webster'sÐ Ð  ÐThird€New€Int'l€Dictionary€2548€(3d€ed.€1961)€(defining€"vexatious"Ïto€mean,€inter€alia,€"lacking€justification€and€intended€toÏharass");€19€Oxford€English€Dictionary€596€(2d€ed.€1989)€(definingÏ"vexatious"€for€legal€purposes€as€"[i]nstituted€without€sufficientÏgrounds€for€the€purpose€of€causing€trouble€or€annoyance€to€theÏdefendant").Ìà ` àCircuit€courts€construing€the€Hyde€Amendment€have€variedÏin€interpreting€the€term€"vexatious."€€The€òòGilbertóó€court,€forÐ P  Ðinstance,€relies€on€a€definition€of€"vexatious"€as€"withoutÏreasonable€or€probable€cause€or€excuse."€€òòSeeóó€198€F.3d€at€1298„99;Ð pÀ Ðòòaccordóó€òòIn€re€1997€Grand€Juryóó,€215€F.3d€430,€436€(4th€Cir.€2000).€Ð P ÐBy€contrast,€the€Ninth€Circuit,€in€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSherburneóó,€249Ð à ÐF.3d€1121€(9th€Cir.€2001),€held€that€a€finding€of€vexatiousnessÏunder€the€Hyde€Amendment€requires€both€a€determination€that€theÏprosecution€was€"objectively€deficient"€in€that€it€"lack[ed]€merit"Ïand€a€finding€that€the€prosecution€possessed€"an€element€ofÏmaliciousness,€or€an€intent€to€harass."€€òòId.óó€at€1126.€€TheÐ `"°& ÐòòSherburneóó€court€referred€to€the€finding€that€the€suit€lacked€meritÐ ð#@( Ðas€an€"objective"€component€of€vexatiousness€and€the€finding€thatÏthe€suit€was€prosecuted€with€some€subjective€malice€or€intent€toÏharass€or€annoy€as€a€"subjective"€component.€€òòId.óó€at€1127.€€OtherÐ  (ð#. Ðcourts€have€utilized€a€standard€more€amenable€to€the€party€seekingÏfees.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHollandóó,€34€F.€Supp.€2d€346€(E.D.€Va.Ð À+'2 Ð1999)€(framing€the€inquiry€as€"whether€a€reasonable€prosecutorÏshould€have€concluded€that€the€applicable€law€and€the€availableÏevidence€were€insufficient€to€prove€the€defendants'€guilt€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€and,€if€so,€was€the€continuation€of€theÏprosecution€vexatious").Ìà ` àWe€hold€that€a€determination€that€a€prosecution€wasÏ"vexatious"€for€the€purposes€of€the€Hyde€Amendment€requires€both€aÏshowing€that€the€criminal€case€was€objectively€deficient,€in€thatÏit€lacked€either€legal€merit€or€factual€foundation,€and€a€showingÏthat€the€government's€conduct,€when€viewed€objectively,€manifestsÏmaliciousness€or€an€intent€to€harass€or€annoy.€€Such€a€reading€bestÏcomports€with€the€language€employed€by€Congress€in€the€Amendment.€ÏThis€is€especially€so€when€considered€in€the€context€of€Congress'sÏconcern€to€protect€against€prosecutorial€misconduct€while€at€theÏsame€time€providing€a€sufficiently€stringent€standard€to€avoidÏundermining€appropriate€prosecutorial€zeal.ÌÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔà ` àThe€standard€implied€by€the€district€court€and€advancedÐ °  Ðby€the€defendants€„„€that€"vexatious"€conduct€can€be€shown€simplyÏby€showing€that€the€charges€brought€by€the€United€States€wereÏultimately€determined€to€be€without€either€evidentiary€or€legalÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò ˆ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ `"°& Ðfoundation€„„€does€not€adequately€account€for€Congress's€efforts€toÏlimit€Hyde€Amendment€awards€to€cases€of€affirmative€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€rather€than€simply€any€prosecution€which€failed.€€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòf‰#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔAs€theÐ '`", ÐòòGilbertóó€court€notes,€"[i]n€prosecuting€crime,€government€attorneysÐ  (ð#. Ðare€entitled€to€be€zealous€advocates€of€the€law€on€behalf€of€theirÏclient,€the€people€of€the€United€States.€€While€a€prosecutor€is€notÐ À+'2 Ðat€liberty€to€strike€foul€blows,€he€may€strike€hard€ones,€and€'[h]eÏmay€prosecute€with€earnestness€and€vigor€„„€indeed,€he€should€doÏso.'"€€198€F.3d€at€1303€(quoting€òòBergeróó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€295€U.S.Ð Ð  Ð78,€88€(1935)).Ìà ` àThe€structure€of€the€statute€also€militates€againstÏresting€vexatiousness€simply€upon€a€finding€that€the€prosecutionÏlacked€"any€credible€evidence."€€IÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò€Š#ÔÔ‡‹îò‹‹XîòÔt€may€be€that€if€the€governmentÐ `  Ðpursued€a€position€so€obviously€wrong€that€no€reasonable€prosecutorÏcould€have€supported€it,€the€defendant€would€be€entitled€to€a€feeÏaward€under€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€Without€a€finding€of€bad€faith€orÏimproper€motive,€however,€if€the€government€pursues€a€prosecutionÏwithout€any€foundation€or€basis€for€belief€that€it€might€prevail,Ïsuch€a€prosecution€would€more€appropriatelyñŸ3ñ€ñŸ3ñ€be€deemed€"frivolous"Ïthan€"vexatious."Ô#†Xîò‹‹‹îòp#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€€Reading€"vexatious"€to€encompass€such€a€caseÐ P Ðwould€render€it€synonymous€with€"frivolous,"€thus€improperlyÏrendering€the€term€mere€surplusage.Ìà ` àFinally,€awarding€fees€upon€a€determination€that€theÏprosecution€lacked€sufficient€evidence€does€not€accord€with€theÏlegislative€history€of€the€Hyde€Amendment.€€In€rejecting€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò‘#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔthe€"notÐ Ð $ Ðsubstantially€justified"€formulation€of€the€EAJA€and€the€"withoutÏfoundation"€formulation€of€the€Firearms€Act,€Congress€sought€narrowÏlanguage€"meant€to€sanction€and€deter€prosecutorial€misconduct,€notÏprosecutorial€zealousness€òòper€seóó."€€òòGilbertóó,€198€F.3d€at€1304.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р'`", ÐThe€Hyde€Amendment's€shifting€of€the€burden€of€proof€also€reflectsÏthis€concern.€€The€alternative€construction€urged€by€the€defendantsÏwould€burden€the€United€States€with€the€threat€of€a€large€number€ofÏfee€applications€arising€from€circumstances€quite€different€thanÏthose€against€which€Congress€sought€to€protect.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò1‘#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ ð @ Ðà ` àTo€make€best€sense€of€the€statutory€language€and€in€lightÏof€the€purposes€embodied€in€the€Hyde€Amendment,€we€conclude€thatÏsomething€more€than€simply€an€inadequate€evidentiary€foundation€isÏrequired€to€demonstrate€that€the€prosecution€was€"vexatious"€withinÏthe€meaning€of€the€Hyde€Amendment€„„€that€is,€some€finding€ofÏmalice€or€improper€motivation€is€required.׃è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€all,€there€is€anÐ P  Ðalternate€ground€in€the€statute€to€award€fees€where€an€action€isÏfrivolous.€€In€requiring€that€the€government's€conduct€manifestÏmalice€or€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòH”#Ôan€intent€to€harass€or€annoy€in€order€to€be€"vexatious,"Ð Ð  Ðhowever,€we€do€not€intend€an€inquiry€into€subjective€intent,€and€weÏreject€the€approach€of€òòSherburneóó€to€the€extent€it€suggests€thatÐ ð @ Ðsuch€attention€to€subjective€motivations€is€required.€€Rather,€theÏissue€is€whether€the€government's€conduct,€when€viewed€objectively,Ïmanifests,€or€is€tantamount€to,€malice€or€an€intent€to€harass€orÏannoy.€€òòCf.óó€òòBraleyóó€v.€òòCampbellóó,€832€F.2d€1504,€1512€(10th€Cir.Ð 0€  Ð1987)€(en€banc)€(rejecting€subjective€intent€standard€"as€virtuallyÏimpossible€to€apply"€for€fee€awards€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1927).׃x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P  ÐB.€€òòEvidence€of€Malice€or€Intent€to€Harass€or€Annoyóóò òó óÐ à0 ÐÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔà ` àThe€district€court€here€did€not€make€any€express€findingsÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€government's€actions€in€this€case€manifested€malice€or€anÏintent€to€harass€or€annoy,€resting€its€fee€award€instead€on€theÏpurported€absence€of€credible€evidence€to€support€the€charges.€ÏUnder€the€standard€articulated€here,€the€absence€of€objectiveÐ °  Ðevidence€of€such€improper€motive€renders€the€fee€awardÏinappropriate.€€The€district€court€did,€however,€identify€andÏcriticize€isolated€conduct€of€the€EPA€and€prosecution,€andÏdÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòwš#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔefendants€suggest€that€this€conduct€suffices€to€proveÐ ` ° Ðvexatiousness€and€support€the€award€in€any€event.Ìà ` àDefendants€point€to€an€array€of€government€conduct€bothÏbefore€the€indictment€and€during€litigation€in€an€effort€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€prosecution€was€indeed€vexatious.€AsÏdefendants€contend,€it€is€permissible€for€courts€to€consider€theÏconduct€of€the€investigation€in€order€to€provide€a€context€in€whichÏto€assess€whether€a€prosecution€was€"vexatious"€within€the€terms€ofÏthe€Hyde€Amendment.€€However,€the€alleged€conduct€in€this€case,Ïwhether€taken€independently€or€collectively,€either€lacksÏsufficient€record€support€or€fails€to€rise€to€the€level€of€conductÏrequired€to€find€vexatiousness.€€Therefore€this€tacit€argument€thatÏthe€government€proceeded€with€improper€purposes€does€not€succeed.€ÏÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòÙœ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔWe€address€the€contentions€in€turn.Ð °  Ðà ` àFirst,€defendants€point€to€the€district€court'sÏconclusion€that€some€samples€taken€during€the€October€21€inspectionÏof€the€site€exceeded€the€scope€of€the€permission€given€by€Knott.€ÏThe€validity€of€the€order€suppressing€the€afternoon€samples€is€notÏbefore€us,€but€the€issue€was€close€and€the€ultimate€decision€toÏsuppress€the€evidence€was€by€no€means€a€foregone€conclusion.€€InÏany€event,€the€mere€fact€that€EPA€inspectors€took€samples€exceedingÏthe€scope€of€permission€hardly€warrants€an€inference€that€theirÏconduct€was€vexatious;€their€conduct€could€just€as€well€have€restedÐ À+'2 Ðon€an€honest€mistake€of€fact€or€misapprehension€of€the€authorityÏthey€had€been€granted,€a€possibility€suggested€by€the€fact€thatÏthey€subsequently€provided€a€split€sample€from€that€afternoon€toÏthe€defendantsÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò^ #ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àSecond,€defendants€seize€on€the€district€court'sÏdetermination€that€there€was€"credible€evidence"€that€theÏannotation€of€some€of€the€sampling€results€had€been€altered;€theyÏcontend€that€such€alteration€is€evidence€of€governmental€abuse.€€AsÏan€initial€matter,€there€is€little€evidence€in€the€record€that€anyÏof€the€annotations€were€altered€apart€from€the€4€pH€reading€atÏManhole€#2€on€October€21.€€Putting€aside€the€question€of€support€inÏthe€record,€even€assuming€dubitante€that€some€of€the€sampleÏreadings€were€deliberately€and€erroneously€re„recorded,€that€aloneÏwould€not€necessarily€be€enough€to€establish€vexatious€prosecutionÏwhere€properly€recorded€samples€showed€a€violation.€€But€here€theÏdistrict€court€did€not€render€any€findings€as€to€the€reasons€whyÏannotations€were€changed,€just€that€there€was€"credible€evidence"Ïthat€they€may€have€been.€€The€annotations€in€the€log€may€have€beenÏwritten€over€for€any€number€of€reasons,€some€as€benign€as€theÏcorrection€of€a€mistake.€€Nor€is€there€any€recordÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò ¤#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€evidenceÐ `"°& Ðsuggesting€any€improper€conduct€in€recording€the€sample€results.€ÏEven€assuming€that€the€fact€of€some€alterations€is€supported€in€theÏrecord,Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò^¨#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€since€the€existence€of€the€purported€alterations€is€equallyÐ '`", Ðopen€to€benign€and€malign€interpretations€on€the€present€record,€itÏâ âhardly€provides€sufficient€evidence€of€vexatious€conduct.€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àThird,€defendants€charge€that€the€EPA€agents€continued€toÏâ âtake€readings€at€Manhole€#1€despite€their€awareness€of€Knott'sÏclaim€to€ownership€of€the€sewer€line€under€Riverdale€StreetÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòK©#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ,€andÐ Ð  Ðsubsequently€prosecuted€them€largely€on€the€basis€of€pH€readingsÏtaken€at€Manhole€#1.€€This€charge€does€not€support€anyÏdetermination€of€vexatiousness.€€The€question€of€ownership€of€theÏsewer€under€Riverdale€Street,€as€discussed€further€below,€was€openÏto€reasonable€dispute,€and€the€EPA€was€entitled€to€pursue€chargesÏbased€on€discharges€at€the€first€manhole€so€long€as€it€had€a€legalÏargument€that€the€public€sewer€began€there.€€More€importantly,€asÏdiscussed€below,€the€pH€level€of€discharges€at€Manhole€#1€providesÏrelevant€evidence€of€violations€even€if€the€public€sewer€begins€atÏManhole€#2,€regardless€of€ownership.Ìà ` àNext,€defendants€contend€that€the€fact€that€the€EPA€andÏthe€U.S.€Attorney€issued€press€releases€following€the€indictmentÏreveals€malice.€€The€press€releases€simply€state€that€theÏdefendants€were€indicted€and€describe€the€charges€for€which€theÏindictments€were€issued.€€Such€standard€press€releases€do€notÏsuggest€any€intent€to€vex.Ìà ` àDefendants€also€contend€that€vexatiousness€is€shown€byÏthe€government's€failure€to€produce€automaticallyÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòE«#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€some€evidence€theÐ ð#@( Ðcourt€deemed€exculpatory,€where€such€production€is€required€by€aÏlocal€court€ruleÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòܯ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ.€€The€court€deemed€a€certain€log€to€be€exculpatoryÐ '`", Ðbecause€it€showed€a€series€of€pH€readings€at€Manhole€#2€above€5.0Ïs.u.€on€the€morning€of€November€7.€€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò–°#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔWhile€the€government€is€correctÐ 0*€%0 Ðthat€the€existence€of€some€discharges€within€the€legal€limit€is€notÐ À+'2 Ðclearly€exculpatory,€the€better€practice€would€have€been€for€theÏgovernment€to€produce€the€logs€as€part€of€automatic€discovery€givenÏthe€local€rule.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€logs€were€turned€overÏin€a€timelyÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò†±#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€fashion€upon€a€discoveryÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò&³#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€request€from€the€defendants,Ð ` ° Ðand€the€short€delay€did€not€prejudice€the€defendants.€€In€theseÏcircumstances,€given€that€the€exculpatory€nature€of€the€evidence€isÏquestionable,€the€failure€to€produce€the€evidence€automaticallyÏdoes€not€amount€to€vexatious€behavior€within€the€meaning€of€theÏHyde€Amendment.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò³#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ 0€  Ðà ` àDefendants€also€claim€that€the€government€unduly€delayedÏdismissing€the€case€following€the€district€court's€suppressionÏorder.€€The€district€court€ruled€on€the€suppression€motion€onÏFebruary€16,€1999;€the€government€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€onÏApril€23,€1999.€€Such€a€delay€does€not€suggest€vexatious€conduct.€ÏThe€government€is€entitled€to€weigh€carefullyÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòµ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€whether€or€not€toÐ à Ðappeal€the€exclusion€of€evidence€and€to€assess€carefully€whether€orÏnot€to€continue€the€case€in€the€absence€of€the€excluded€evidence.€ÏIn€doing€so,€the€government€is€engaging€in€precisely€the€sort€ofÏprosecutorial€decisionmaking€that€is€its€business,€and€assessingÏthe€strength€of€the€remaining€case€requires€some€consideration.€ÏIndeed,€the€decision€here€to€move€for€a€dismissal€of€the€indictmentÏwas€by€no€means€preordained€by€the€suppression€order,€as€theÏgovernment€had€evidence€with€which€it€might€have€pressed€its€caseÏeven€without€the€excluded€evidence.€€We€would€not€want€the€HydeÏâ âAmendment€to€deter€the€prosecution€from€exercising€its€discretionÐ 0*€%0 Ðto€dismiss€cases€where€it€concludes€that€prosecution€is€no€longerÏwarranted.Ìâ âà ` àFinally,€defendants€contend€that€the€manner€in€which€theÏEPA€executed€the€November€7€search€warrant€evinces€vexatiousness.€ÏThe€district€court€stated€that€the€EPA€brought€"a€virtual€'SWATÏteam'"€to€conduct€the€search€and€that€the€agents€involved€engagedÏin€"humiliating"€conduct.€€(The€search€involved€the€presence€of€21Ïagents,€some€armed,€who€interviewed€and€videotaped€employees.)€€106ÏF.€Supp.€2d€at€180.€€However,€any€conclusion€that€the€EPA€agentsÏengaged€in€unwarranted€behavior€in€executing€the€search€is€notÏsupported€by€the€record.€€The€affidavits€of€Knott€and€Agent€CreavinÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîòж#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ P  Ðcontain€conflicting€statements€regarding€the€search.€€But€evenÏcrediting€all€of€Knott's€sworn€allegations€regarding€the€search,Ïthe€conduct€of€the€search€does€not€amount€to€vexatious€conduct.€ÏKnott€alleges€that€the€EPA€brought€21€agents,€some€armed,€that€theyÏengaged€in€"outrageous€and€disruptive"€behavior€in€conducting€theÏsearch,€and€that€some€of€the€seizedÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò‘¼#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€documents€were€outside€theÐ °  Ðscope€of€the€search€warrant.€€In€an€unsworn€letter€to€the€assistantÏU.S.€attorney,€Knott€supplemented€these€charges,€contending€thatÏthe€EPA€did€not€show€him€the€search€warrant€until€the€premises€wereÏsecured,€that€they€interviewed€Riverdale€Mills€employees€bothÏduring€the€search€and€later€in€the€day€at€their€homes,€that€theseÏinterviews€were€videotaped,€and€that€in€one€instance€the€agentÏholding€the€video€camera€held€it€too€close€to€the€face€of€theÏâ âinterviewee€until€another€agent€asked€him€to€back€up.€€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àNone€of€these€contentions€„„€apart€from€the€conclusoryÏâ âcharacterization€of€the€conduct€as€"outrageous"€„„€set€forthÏconduct€that€is€properly€deemed€vexatious,€at€least€absent€moreÏspecific€facts.€€There€is€nothing€untoward€about€criminalÏinvestigative€agents€of€the€EPA€wearing€holstered€firearms€while€inÏthe€field,€nor€about€securing€premises€before€showing€the€searchÏwarrant.€€That€the€EPA€wanted€to€interview€Riverdale€MillsÏemployees€is€also€hardly€surprising,€as€is€the€fact€that€the€EPAÏwanted€to€record€the€interviews.€€It€was,€after€all,€a€tip€from€anÏemployee€which€started€the€whole€investigation,€and€it€appears€thatÏthe€employees€knew€the€pretreatment€system€was€not€operating€asÏrequired,€and€that€Knott€was€aware€of€this.€€The€record€does€notÏreflect€any€misconduct€in€the€manner€in€which€the€interviews€wereÏcarried€outÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòR¾#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ,€or€even€provide€any€reason€to€suspect€it,€and€theÐ P Ðdefendants€opted€not€to€provide€affidavits€from€the€interviewedÏemployees.€€On€the€record€before€the€court,€there€was€no€basis€toÏfind€that€the€EPA€engaged€in€such€unwarranted€conduct€in€executingÏthe€warrant€as€to€render€its€behavior€vexatious€within€the€meaningÏof€the€Hyde€Amendment.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð $ Ðà ` àThe€record€simply€does€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò:Ä#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔnot€reflect€the€sort€of€malice€orÐ `"°& Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€toward€which€the€Hyde€Amendment€wasÏdirected.€€While€the€government€might€have€handled€itself€better€inÏsome€of€these€instanceÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòmÆ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔs,€that€does€not€render€its€conductÐ '`", Ð"vexatious."Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò|Ç#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€€Rather,€an€award€of€fees€for€"vexatious"€prosecutionÐ  (ð#. Ðunder€the€Hyde€Amendment€requires€some€evidence€upon€which€aÏreasonable€observer€can€conclude€that€the€prosecution€was€based€inÏmalice€or€an€intent€to€harass€or€annoy.€€The€district€court€erredÏas€a€matter€of€law€in€applying€a€legal€standard€that€would€awardÏfees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment€in€any€case€where€the€prosecution€isÏultimately€deemed€to€have€been€without€sufficient€foundation.ÌØØÓL€ Š½(3LÓC.€€òòEvidence€to€Support€ProsecutionóóÐ `  Ðà ` àOf€equal€importance€is€that€the€district€court's€findingÏthat€there€was€no€"credible€evidence"€upon€which€to€pursue€chargesÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòÈ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ 0€  Ðwas€clear€error.€€The€government€had€ample€reason€to€investigateÏand€pursue€charges€against€the€defendants,€and€indeed€still€hadÏadequate€cause€to€prosecute€even€after€the€suppression€of€evidence.€ÏThus€an€award€of€attorneys'€fees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment€isÏclearly€not€warranted,€given€the€failure€to€meet€the€first€part€ofÏthe€test€of€vexatiousness:€that€the€government's€suit€lacked€eitherÏlegal€merit€or€factual€foundation.Ìà ` àThe€EPA€had€ample€reason€to€initiate€an€investigation€ofÏKnott€and€Riverdale€Mills.€€In€the€summer€of€1997,€the€EPA€receivedÏan€anonymous€letter€from€an€employee€of€the€company€indicating€thatÏthe€company€was€not€complying€with€the€pretreatment€requirementsÏset€out€in€its€agreement€with€the€state,€as€embodied€in€its€stateÏpermit€to€discharge€industrial€wastewater€into€the€public€sewer.€ÏUpon€arriving€to€investigate€this€allegation€on€October€21,€the€EPAÏinspectors€observed€that,€contrary€to€Knott's€allegedÏrepresentation€that€morning,€the€pretreatment€system€at€the€plantÏwas€not€in€operation.€€Indeed,€although€at€the€closing€conferenceÐ À+'2 Ðon€the€afternoon€of€October€21,€the€EPA€inspectors€discussed€withÏKnott€the€fact€that€the€pretreatment€system€was€not€operational€andÏthat€low€pH€discharges€into€the€public€sewer€were€occurring€as€aÏresult,€when€the€EPA€returned€to€conduct€the€November€7€search,€theÏpretreatment€system€was€still€not€operating€properly.€€InterviewsÏwith€Riverdale€Mills€employees€that€dayÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòCË#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€confirmedÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò_Ñ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€that€theÐ € Ð  Ðpretreatment€system€had€been€out€of€operation€for€several€monthsÏand€that€Knott€was€aware€that€it€was€not€functioning.€€DefendantsÏdo€not€contest€ñ 3ñthe€fact€ñ 3ñthat€the€pretreatment€system€was€not€inÏoperation€on€either€day€but€rather€resort€to€arguments€that€otherÏprocesses€would€dilute€the€wastewater€before€it€reached€the€publicÏsewer.Ìà ` àIn€addition,€there€was€considerable€direct€evidence€of€aÏClean€Water€Act€violation.€€As€defendants€acknowledge,€a€singleÏknowing€discharge€of€wastewater€with€pH€below€5.0€s.u.€into€theÏpublic€sewer€is€sufficient€to€prosecute€as€a€Clean€Water€ActÏviolation.€€Here,€at€the€time€the€government€sought€the€indictment,Ïit€had€over€fifty€samples€that€it€considered€direct€evidence€ofÏdischarges€below€pH€5.0€s.u.€€For€the€first€count,€covering€OctoberÏ21,€the€EPA€had€13€samples€from€Manhole€#1€below€pH€3.0€s.u.€andÏone€disputed€sample€at€Manhole€#2€at€pH€around€4.0€s.u.€€For€theÏsecond€count,€covering€November€7,€the€EPA€had€over€40€samplesÏbelow€pH€5.0€s.u.,€including€three€below€pH€3.0€s.u.,€all€taken€atÏManhole€#1.Ìà ` àThe€district€court€discounted€much€of€this€evidence€asÏimmaterial,€giving€two€reasons:€€first,€much€of€it€resulted€fromÐ À+'2 Ðsamples€taken€at€Manhole€#1Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò«Ñ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ;€and€second,Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòñÖ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€much€of€it€was€laterÐ ° ÐsuppressedÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò@×#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ.€€The€decision€not€to€consider€the€government's€evidenceÐ @ Ðtaken€at€Manhole€#1€is€flawed,€in€two€respects.€€First,€at€the€timeÏñ¡3ñitñ¡3ññ¡3ñthe€governmentñ¡3ñ€sought€the€indictment,€the€ownership€of€the€streetÏwhere€Manhole€#1€is€located€remained€in€dispute,€and€the€governmentÏhad€a€good€faith€legal€argument€that€the€relevant€point€ofÏdischarge€into€the€public€sewers€was€the€first€manhole.€€ThereforeÏit€was€entitled€to€pursue€charges€based€on€discharges€at€ManholeÏ#1.€€Ìà ` àMore€importantly,€the€district€court's€decision€toÏdisregard€the€sampling€results€at€Manhole€#1€misapprehends€orÏignores€the€relationship€between€sampling€data€collected€at€theÏfirst€manhole€and€the€acidity€of€Riverdale€Mills's€discharges€intoÏthe€public€sewer,€even€if€the€public€sewer€begins€only€at€theÏsecond€manhole.€€The€prosecution€had€ample€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€discharged€highly€acidic€water€at€the€first€manhole€onÏboth€days.€€Even€if€the€relevant€public€sewer€does€not€begin€untilÏthe€second€manhole€100€yards€away,€these€samples€still€provideÏevidence€that€the€water€ultimately€discharged€by€the€defendants€atÏthe€second€manhole€had€a€highly€acidic€content.€€That€isÏparticularly€so€in€light€of€the€EPA€expert's€conclusions.€€The€EPAÏwas€not€required€to€accept€Knott's€lay€theory,€not€even€advanced€onÏappeal,€that€the€slope€of€the€pipes€over€that€100€yard€distanceÏensured€that€pulses€of€highly€acidic€water€would€inevitably€beÏneutralized€by€mixing€with€pulses€of€highly€caustic€water€beforeÏthey€both€hit€Manhole€#2.€€Nor€was€the€EPA€required€to€accept€theÐ À+'2 Ðlater„advanced€theory€that€the€pipes€were€subject€to€so€muchÏgroundwater€infiltration€that€the€groundwater€would€dilute€theÏeffluent€down€to€an€acceptable€level€over€the€short€distance€of€100Ïyards.€€By€overlooking€the€bearing€which€the€pH€readings€at€theÏfirst€manhole€have€on€the€acidity€of€discharges€at€the€second,€theÏdistrict€court€committed€clear€error.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò¶×#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ € Ð  Ðà ` àThe€defendants€argue€that€the€district€court€is€free€toÏaccept€or€reject€the€conclusions€of€the€EPA€expert€who€stated€thatÏthe€groundwater€infiltration€rate€would€not€sufficiently€diluteÏhighly€acidic€water€within€the€100€yard€span€of€the€sewer€lineÏunder€Riverdale€Street.€€While€this€assertion€may€be€true€as€to€theÏultimate€factual€determination,€it€misses€the€issue€at€stake€in€theÏapplication€for€fees€under€the€Hyde€Amendment,€which€is€whether€theÏEPA€was€vexatious€in€deciding€to€proceed€in€its€prosecution.€€EvenÏif€the€court€or€jury€did€not€ultimately€credit€the€EPA€expert'sÏconclusions,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€thatÏthat€expert€was€so€wantonly€and€obviously€wrong€that€the€EPA€wasÏnot€entitled€to€rely€upon€his€determinations€in€proceeding.€€IndeedÏhis€determination€may€well€be€correct.€€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòªß#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔFor€these€reasons,€theÐ Ð $ Ðevidence€of€samplesñ¢3ñ€beloñ¢3ññ£3ññ¢3ñeñ¢3ññ£3ññ¤3ñw€pH€3.0€s.u.ñ¤3ñ€at€Manhole€#1€remainsÏcredible€evidence€upon€which€the€EPA€was€entitled€to€pursueÏcharges.€€Ìà ` àSecond,€in€concluding€that€the€prosecution€lacked€"anyÏcredible€evidence,"€Ô#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòCã#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔthe€district€court€erroneously€discounted€all€Ð  (ð#. Ðthe€evidence€that€it€had€suppressed.€€For€Hyde€Amendment€purposes,Ïhowever,€the€court€must€assess€the€basis€for€pursuing€charges€fromÐ À+'2 Ðthe€perspective€of€the€government€òòat€the€timeóó.€€Instead,€theÐ ° Ðdistrict€court€required€undue€prescience€on€the€part€of€theÏgovernment.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîò³ä#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€€The€government€was€entitled,€òòab€initioóó,€to€rely€on€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence€subsequently€suppressed€in€making€its€prosecutorialÏdecision,€provided€it€could€articulate,€in€good€faith,€a€reasonableÏposition€on€the€suppression€issue.€€Ìà ` àThere€were€genuine€factual€disputes€regarding€whatÏhappened€on€October€21,€and€the€conditions€which€were€imposed€uponÏthe€consent€to€the€EPA€inspection€were,€at€the€very€least,Ïambiguous.€€The€government€was€entitled€to€rely€on€its€evidence€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòpæ#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔsoÐ À Ðlong€as€it€had€a€good„faith€basis€for€contending€that€the€evidenceÏwas€admissible.€€The€suppressionÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò¨è#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€issue€presented€here€was€not€soÐ à0 Ðclear€cut€as€to€deprive€the€prosecution€of€a€reasonable€basis€forÏbelieving€that€its€evidence€was€admissible.€€An€interpretation€ofÏthe€Hyde€Amendment€which€effectively€requires€the€governmentÏprecisely€to€anticipate€later€evidentiary€rulings,€where€reasonableÏgrounds€for€disagreement€exist,€is€untenable€in€light€of€theÏlanguage€and€purposes€of€the€Hyde€Amendment.€Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòdé#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ @" ÐÔ#†Xîò‹‹ŠîòJë#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔà ` àIndeed,€even€after€the€suppression€ruling,€there€remainedÐ Ð $ Ðan€adequate€evidentiary€foundation€for€the€prosecution,€at€least€asÏconcerns€the€second€countÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò¡ë#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ.€€There€were€three€readings€below€pH€3.0Ð ð#@( Ðat€the€first€manhole€on€November€7,€each€of€which,€in€conjunctionÏwith€the€testimony€of€the€EPA€expert,Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòšì#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€could€provide€an€adequateÐ '`", Ðfoundation€for€a€Clean€Water€Act€charge.€€In€addition,€the€EPAÏdirectly€observed€that€the€pretreatment€system€was€not€in€operationÏon€either€day,€as€corroborated€through€employee€interviews.€Ð À+'2 ÐMoreover,€there€was€evidence€the€system€had€not€been€in€operationÏfor€some€time,€which€Knott€well€knew.€€Although€the€EPA€ultimatelyÏconcluded€that€it€would€not€proceed,€there€remained€credibleÏevidence€to€support€a€prosecution.€€Weighing€the€strength€of€theÏevidence€and€determining€whether€or€not€to€prosecute€are€preciselyÏthe€sorts€of€choices€the€government€is€entitled€to€make,€based€onÏinformation€iñ¥3ñtñ¥3ññ¥3ñsñ¥3ñ€has€acquired€through€due€diligence.Ìà ` àSince€the€EPA€had€a€reasonably€sufficient€evidentiaryÏbasis€upon€which€to€pursue€charges€against€the€defendants,€bothÏbefore€and€even€after€the€suppression€ruling,€and€absent€anyÏfinding€or€reason€to€believe€that€the€government€acted€either€outÏof€malice€or€with€any€intent€to€harass€or€annoy,€the€fee€award€toÏRiverdale€Mills€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòí#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔÐ pÀ ÐÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÐ P ÐÓ@òÓà ` àFor€these€reasons,€we€òòaffirmóó€the€denial€of€fees€to€Knott,€Ð à0 Ðòòreverseóó€the€grant€of€fees€to€Riverdale€Mills,€and€remand€theÐ pÀ Ðapplication€for€feesÔ#†Xîò‹‹Šîò ò#ÔÔ‡Šîò‹‹XîòÔ€under€the€Hyde€Amendment€to€the€district€courtÐ P  Ðfor€dismissal,€with€prejudice.€€Ìà ` àòòSo€ordered.óó€€No€costs€are€awarded.Ô#†Xîò‹‹Šîòió#Ô