The Judiciary

Fiscal Year 2015
ressional Budget Justification

OURTS,AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

UNT REQUIREMENTS

Request

cal Year 2014 Appropriation

OURTS,AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

$1,044,394,000
$1,053,158,000

$8,764,000

zations; the compensation and reimbursement ofexpenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 18 U.S.C. 3006A and 3599, and for
of persons famishing investigative, expert, and other services for such representations as authorized by law; the compensation (in accordance with
ursement ofexpenses of attorneys appointed to assist the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived representation by counsel; the
torneys appointed to representjurors in civil actions for the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1875(d)(1); the
torneys appointed under 18 U.S.C. 983(6)(1) in connection with certain judicial civil forfeiture proceedings; the compensation and reimbursement
under 18 U.S.C. 4100(6); and for necessary training and general administrative expenses,[$1,044,394,000] $l,053,158,000, to remain available

2,720

2,720
-

2,720
2

1,078,158

1,0_53,158
25,000

1,053,l58
8,764

opriation Required.......................................................................................................
se, Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year 2015..................................................................................

red..............................................................................................................................
rd from fiscal year 2014 into fiscal year 2015.........................................................................................

015 Request:

al Year 2015................................................................................................................

6.~

17,628

(17,157)
(6,384)

985,598
6,370
991,968
991,968

FY 2013 Actual

1,044,394

25,000

(17,628)
-

1,054,176
7,846
1,062,022
(25,000)
1,037,022

FY 2014 Estimate

-

(25,000)
-

1,069,776
8,382
1,078,158
1,078,158

FY 2015 Re uest

1,053,158

986,055

Obligations by Activity
($000)

COURTS OF APPEALS,DISTRICT COURTS,AND OTHER JUDIC
IAL SERVICES
DEFENDER SERVICES

Activi

epresentations &Related Expenses
am Administration
bligations
ipated Financial Plan Savings
d Obli ations

gated Balance, Start of Year
ear Recoveries

gated Balance, End of Year'
ro riation

3 includes a $500,000 transfer from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ble A

• ~

DEFENDER SERVICES

COURTS OF APPEALS,DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES
Obligations by Budget Object Class($000)

278,285
86,131
2,332
6,696
218
39,630
406
5,403
96
438,579
1,484
7,445
125,263
1,062,022
(25,000)
1,037,022

291,547
91,837
4,080
9,248
270
41,025
451
7,134
140
466,814
2,106
11,256
136,114
1,078,158
1,078,158

298,202
93,021
3,300
9,70
27~
~
41,722
459
7,255
142
471,823
2,142
11,447
138,664

FY 2013 Actual FY 2014 Estimate FY 2015 Request

Personnel compensation
Personnel benefits
Benefits for former personnel
Travel
Transportation of Things
Rental payments to GSA
Rental payments to others
Communications, utilities & misc.
Printing and reproduction
Other services
Supplies and materials
Equipment
Grant Payments (to Community Defender
Or anizations)
991,968
991,968

Descri lion
1100
1200
1300
2100
2200
2310
2320
2300
2400
2500
2600
3100
4100
Total Obligations
Anticipated Financial Plan Savings
Revised Obligations

2,628

31

2, 97

2,718

i

2,713

2,720

7

2,713

FY 2013 Actual I Y 2014 Estimate FY 2015 Request

Full Time Equivalents(FTEs) by Activity

CJA Representations &Related Expenses
Program AdministrationZ
Total, FTEs

~ The FI'Es listed are attributable to Federal Public Defender Organization staff.
FTE in the
Z Under the Administrative OfFce restructuring, program administration staff(30 FTE)previously reported as direct
in fiscal year
Defender Services account will be reported as reimbursable FTE in the Administrative Office account beginning
to these
2014. The Defender Services account is still responsible for the financing of both salary and non-salary expenses related
positions.

--

-

6.5

1,052,070

-

1,078,158
2x,125
(49,213)

F'Y 2015 Request

COURTS OF APPEALS,DISTRICT COURTS,AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES
DEFENDER SERVICES
Relation of Obligations to Outlays($000)

1,037,022
24,291
(23,125)

FY 2014 Estimate

991,968
27,192
(24,291)
(2,363)
(3,517)
1,038,188

FY 2013 Actual

start of year
End of Year
year unpaid obligations

988,989

-

Outla s

Difference

-

41,136
(I,166)
(26,088)

13,882

6.6

EMENT AND INFORMATION

or the Defender Services account support
ounsel and other services necessary to
eligible defendants, which the judiciary is
y the United States Constitution; the
(CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; and other
ds provide for the continuing education and
o furnish representational services under the
2015 request for appropriated funds is
increase of $8.8 million (0.8 percent) over.
ppropriation of $1,044.4 million.

ION AND GOALS OF THE
DER SERVICES PROGRAM

ght to the assistance of counsel is a critical
minal justice system. In Gideon v.
. 335(1963), the United States Supreme
ght of one charged with a crime to counsel
undamental and essential to fair trials in
t is in ours." The mission of the Defender
sures that the Sixth Amendment right to
o those who cannot afford to retain counsel
defense services. By fulfilling its mission,
s program helps to: (a) maintain public
ion's commitment to equal justice under
he successful operation ofthe
d adversary system ofjustice by which both
and federally guaranteed rights are

The four goals of the Defender Services program are to:
(1) timely provide counsel services to all eligible persons;(2)
provide counsel services consistent with the best practices ofthe
legal profession;(3) provide cost-effective services; and (4)
protect the independence of the defense function performed by
assigned counsel so that the rights of individual defendants are
safeguarded and enforced.
TYPES OF COUNSEL:
Federal Defenders and Private Attorneys
The CJA authorizes the appointment of counsel, who are either
attorneys employed by a federal defender organization (FDO)or
private "panel" attorneys. The CJA specifies that in all judicial
districts (including those served by an FDO) private attorneys
shall be appointed "in a substantial proportion of the cases." 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(3). In the 91 (of94)judicial districts served
by an FDO,there is a critical need for qualified panel attorneys.
Ethical standards prohibit appointing FDOs in conflict-ofinterest situations (e.g:, an FDO is precluded from representing
more than one defendant in amulti-defendant case, and is
disqualified from accepting a new appointment that may present
a conflict with the interests of previously represented clients). In
situations where federal defenders are unavailable due to FDO
conflicts or workload demands, and in the districts not served by
an FDO, private or "panel" attorneys must be appointed to
represent all eligible individuals. Three districts (GeorgiaSouthern, Kentucky-Eastern, and Northern Mariana Islands)
have no FDO. Every year Criminal Justice Act attorneys are
appointed in over 200,000 cases where liberty, livelihood, and
personal integrity are at stake.

6.7

rganizations
two types of FDOs: (1)federal public
ons, which are part ofthe judiciary, and (2)
r organizations, which are private, statet corporations funded by annual federal
y be established in any district (or
cent districts) in which at least 200
ade annually. There are currently 81 FDOs
91 of the 94judicial districts. For fiscal year
projects that federal defenders will be
imately 121,542 weighted cases.

ips of federal criminal defense, delivering
ntation at reasonable costs while
hts of individuals under the Constitution.
nd retain lawyers with skills comparable to
criminal matters in U.S. attorney offices.
tise and efficiencies they have developed as
exclusively on federal criminal practice,
effective defense services, consistent with
the legal profession.

vailable for appointments on short notice,
hts of the accused are protected and that the
rts are not disrupted. FDOs also make
nal resources by sharing their expertise and
ther FDOs and panel attorneys.

sts and improve the overall quality of CJA
n the districts they serve by providing expert
other assistance to panel attorneys in

complex legal and technical areas such as sentencing, litigation
support, and issues involving death penalty cases.
Panel Attornevs
A "panel" attorney is a private lawyer who serves on a panel
maintained by the district or appellate court and is assigned by
the court to represent financially eligible defendants in
accordance with the CJA. Nationally, over 90 percent of CJA
panel attorneys are in small law firms(with six or fewer
lawyers), and approximately 60 percent are sole practitioners.
The CJA provides that these attorneys shall be reimbursed for
their expenses and compensated at statutorily authorized hourly
rates for their services. For fiscal year 2015, the judiciary
projects that panel attorneys will be appointed in 90,900
unweighted cases.
IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION
Federal defenders and panel attorneys rely on adequate funding
to fulfill their constitutional mandate to ensure that the Sixth
Amendment rights of individual defendants(more than 200,000
case each year) are safeguarded and enforced. However, budget
cuts and sequestration reductions in fiscal year 2013, temporary
reductions to the panel attorney hourly rate, and 22 days of
suspended voucher payments, followed by continued funding
uncertainty, have had a severe and negative systemic impact on
the ability of all attorneys appointed under the CJA to meet these
constitutional obligations. For decades, the federal courts have
come to rely upon readily available and well-qualified CJA
panel attorneys and federal defenders who have the training,
resources, and experience necessary to provide high-quality
representation in federal criminal cases.
6.8

2013 sequestration, this reliance has been
ead furloughs and layoffs in fiscal year
cedented loss of experienced federal
some offices, created an untenable conflict
etween hiring a needed expert in a case and
staff. A temporary emergency rate cut of
l attorneys(from $178 per hour to $163 per
sentations and from $125 per hour to $110
tal representations), followed by weeks of
ning that there could be more deferrals,
rienced private attorneys leaving the CJA
pointments. Reductions in the fiscal year
g budget for substantive legal training for
anel attorneys have drastically decreased
ntive legal knowledge and skills necessary
practice: 18 fiscal year 2013 training
lled, 7 of the 9 authorized federal defender
ograms were not held, 5 of 13 non-capital
attorneys and federal defender staff were
3 death penalty training initiatives were not
se of the fiscal year 2013 cancellations,
aff and CJA practitioners did not receive
se would have.

courts and in FDOs were emphasized in
uly 2013 before the Senate Judiciary
mittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts at a
uestering Justice: How the Budget Crisis is
urts." At the hearing, Judge Julia S.
e Judicial Conference's Budget Committee
ng at sequestration levels would ...
he system that is a hallmark of our liberty

around the world." Michael Nachmanoff, Federal Public
Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, testified that FDOs
were "a model of quality and efficiency," but that due to
sequestration, FDOs were "cutting ourselves to the bone," and
"[i]f action is not taken immediately to save the program, the
federal defender system will be devastated."
Impact of FY 2014 Enacted Funding Level and FY 2015
Requested Levels on Defender Services
FDOs
The fiscal year 2014 enacted level and the fiscal year 2015
request level will enable the FPDOs and CDOs to back-fill lost
positions and maintain staff at pre-sequestration levels. This
restoration of staff should ease the stress on the defender
services program and continue the standard of high quality
representations that is expected. Specifically, the fiscal 2014
enacted and fiscal year 2015 requested funding levels would
permit FDOs to accept appointment in high-threat trials; the
restoration of expert services funding; appropriate case-related
travel; the cyclical replacement of information technology
equipment and software; promotions and assistant federal
defender salary increases; and limited tenant alterations. In
addition, to the extent that the Department of Justice's financial
outlook has improved, the possibility exists that additional
caseload may be anticipated in the near future.
Panel
The fiscal year 2014 enacted level provided sufficient funding to
pay for the fiscal year 2013 panel attorney payment deferrals, lift
the temporary panel attorney rate reductions beginning March 1,
2014 and provides, consistent with the one percent Employment
.•

ease for federal employees effective on
st-of-living adjustment to panel attorney
l hourly rates. As a result, for work
March 1, 2014, panel attorney hourly rates
for non-capital representations and $180
ions. The fiscal year 2015 request for
nts fully funds the projected
ll as avoids any deferrals from fiscal year
ould also support an hourly rate increase
scal year 2015 one percent ECI assumed for

4 training programs were cancelled as a
014 budgetary uncertainty. The ftnal
for the implementation of all other
rograms. However, as a result of the delay
riation, and concerns about its final level,
year 2014 Defender Services training
fewer than in fiscal year 2012. It is hoped
15, it will be possible to fund all authorized
aining programs as well as FDO-supported
th FDO staff and panel members.

ONTAINMENT INITIATIVES

ces
es program has engaged in extensive efforts
ractice fiscal responsibility, without
stitutionally mandated mission to ensure
ment right to counsel is available to those
retain counsel and other necessary defense

services. There is strong awareness of the budget challenges
facing our nation and the need to continue cost-containment
measures in every aspect of the Defender Services program.
Key cost-containment initiatives include, but are not limited to:
(1) promoting the use of case budgeting to control expenditures
in capital and other high-cost CJA panel attorney
representations;(2)applying FDO case weights to assist in
projecting FDO resource requirements nationally and evaluating
individual FDO requests for additional resources;(3) supporting
distance learning initiatives to optimize the training
opportunities accessible to CJA attorneys with the limited funds
available for this purpose; and (4)continue to develop and
implement an electronic CJA voucher system. The defender
services program is also continuing other strategies, in
collaboration with the Department of Justice (DOJ), to reduce
the costs of federal defender and panel attorney representations
associated with matters of discovery and DOJ's death penalty
declination process.
Case Budgeting of CJA Panel Attorney Representations
Since 2007, Defender Services has funded Case-Budgeting
Attorneys(CBAs) in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits to
identify cost drivers, monitor case expenditures, assist district
and appellate judges and CJA panel attorneys with individual
case budgets and cost issues, assist courts in reviewing vouchers
in complex cases to help ensure the reasonableness of the
claims, and coordinate case budgeting and other CJA costcontainment efforts in high-cost representations.
In fiscal year 2013, the 2.6 percent of panel attorney
representations eligible for budgeting (all capital cases and non-

s exceeding $30,000) accounted for
ercent ($130.1 million) of the annual
anel attorney representations.

Center(FJC)conducted an evaluation of
roject to discern its impact on case
t control. The FJC's December 2010
nd that the CBAs accomplished the goal of
le achieving ahigh-quality defense, by
nt of and accountability over high-cost
t also found that the savings from the
costs.

ues to promote the nationwide use of casefor these representations in order to help
ital and other high-cost panel attorney
f representation are anticipated,
red, and, where appropriate, limited before

ssion, the Judicial Conference approved the
CBA positions, the continued Defender
ding for the three current CBAs, and an
on in the number of positions. The fiscal
cludes funding to support the annualization
ositions(2 FTE)added in fiscal year 2014.
itions is anticipated to be offset by savings
resentation expenditures.

gement using Case Weights
uding the number and type of cases, and
cific complexities, determine the funding

an FDO requires to provide effective CJA representation.
Starting in fiscal year 2012, the judiciary implemented a budget
methodology utilizing the weighted case analysis developed by
the RAND Corporation.
RAND's case-weighting system is based on average FDO
attorney time expended to complete each case type in
comparison to the national average for all case types. RAND
concluded that the weights could be used to help evaluate
workload changes for a particular organization from year to year
and noted that weighted caseloads offer a better tool for
identifying new resource requirements than do raw case
numbers.
Beginning in fiscal year 2014, the judiciary used a new method
for formulating the FDO portion of the Defender Services
congressional budget justification. This method relies on caseweight measures for determining staffing and funding needs.
This approach promotes an empirically-based model that more
accurately reflects the requirements of the FDOs. In June of
2013, the judiciary contracted with RAND to update the FDO
case weights.
FDO Work Measurement Studv
In fiscal year 2013, the Administrative Office began the process
of conducting a work measurement study of FDOs. This study
will be used in the creation of a workload staffing formula or
formulas for the FDO portion of the Defender Services budget
request. These formulas will be similar to the ones used for
developing staffing levels across other judiciary accounts. The
formulas are currently scheduled to be delivered to the Judicial

6.11

fthe Judicial Conference in June 2015
r 2016 financial plan and the fiscal year

program continues to develop and
ng programs. Beginning in October 2010,
fense video training sessions have been
practitioners, expanding the reach ofthe
ecessity of additional live training events.
000 and 2,000 practitioners access the
uly 2013, Defender Services began
binars, which are recorded for later use.
ractitioners per year will view either the
ars. The training made available through
ides an additional resource to improve the
on provided by CJA counsel, and enables
to have a greater impact nationally. For
ing the video training sessions and
ir efforts to train panel attorneys locally,
more training, more often.

with individual CJA representations
omplexity year after year, CJA
staff and panel attorneys—require new
anize, review, and manage the large
of information provided by the prosecution
. Paper documents must be scanned, and
itized. This is especially necessary for
ofthousands or millions of pages of
ce encompasses not only discovery

red by
materials produced by the government, but those gathe
panel
third parties and the defense. Federal defenders and
including
attorneys must have sufficient litigation resources,
by DOJ's
national support staff, to meet the challenge presented
that the
litigation support capabilities. The judiciary foresees
grow.
number ofdiscovery-intensive cases will continue to
issue.
Three major initiatives are in place to address this
the judiciary
1) A collaborative effort between representatives of
ion of
and staff from the DOJ reached fruition with the creat
mation (ESI)
"Recommendations for Electronically Stored Infor
which was
Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases,"
designed
released in February 2012. The recommendations are
efficient
to facilitate a more predictable, cost-effective, and
in the
management of electronic discovery, and a reduction
early
number of disputes relating to ESI, by encouraging
t and
discussion of electronic discovery issues through "mee
ange of
confers" between the prosecution and defense; the exch
resolution of
data in standard or reasonably useable formats; and
where
disputes without the necessity of court involvement,
possible.
ged with
For example, in one case, 34 defendants were char
discovery
racketeering involving the MS-13 street gang. The
Office
provided to defense counsel by the U.S. Attorney's
rsations in a
contained over 10,000 hours of wiretapping conve
gy, no
foreign language, but included no index, no chronolo
h defendant
organization, no identifying information as to whic
were
the tape pertained to or where and when the recordings
daunting task
made. As a result, 34 defense attorneys faced the
wire
of translating and reviewing over 10,000 hours of taped
6.12

rmine which conversations pertained to his
more collaborative effort between the
J, situations like these, and the associated
be avoided in the future. The judiciary has
th the DOJ by doing joint and separate
ol, and continuing discussions on
potential modification ofthe protocol.

CJA Guideline 670 (jointly developed with DOJ staff and
approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2007) is
intended to promote cost savings by having DOJ decide earlier
in the process when it will not seek the death penalty. The
guideline encourages courts to set reasonable deadlines for
stages of the death penalty authorization process (subject to
extension for good cause).

eligible cases, the local U.S. attorney does not recommend, and
the Attorney General does not authorize, seeking the death
penalty. However, unless and until DOJ notifies counsel and
the court that it does not intend to seek the death penalty for a
death-eligible defendant, which can takes years to determine,
defense counsel must assume that the death penalty will be
pursued and the judiciary is obligated to bear the substantial cost
of the statutorily required two capitally qualified defense
counsel — compensated at the higher capital rate —who must
undertake the intensive, time-consuming work required to
attempt to persuade the government not to seek the death
penalty, and prepare for a capital trial and sentencinb
proceeding. An early decision by the Attorney General not to
seek the death penalty could achieve significant cost savings for
the Defender Services program, DOJ, and the courts.

of a number of national licenses for
s and tools to allow for the more efficient
, analysis, review and management of casea by CJA panel attorneys and FDO staff
the software, avoiding the higher cost
sing software in multiple cases year after

In July 2011, DOJ published a revised death penalty
authorization protocol. The revised protocol re-emphasizes preindictment determinations of whether to seek the death penalty,
which could lead to a decrease in the number of death-eligible
indictments. The judiciary had hoped that the revised protocol
would adopt a more de-centralized process, deferring to local
U.S. Attorneys' recommendations against seeking the death
penalty or in favor of a negotiated non-capital disposition, which

ee coordinating discovery attorneys(CDAs)
neys and defender offices on cost-effective
e volumes of documents in the most
providing a high quality of representation
ctober 2013, the CDAs have been
an approximately 41 cases, and because
s are multi-defendant cases, are providing
CJA attorneys nationally.

Procedures for Making Decisions Not to
ty in Death-Eligible Cases
g engaged in efforts urging DOJ to
rack" procedures for evaluating and making
the death penalty as acost-containment
re it is highly unlikely that DOJ will
eath penalty. In the vast majority of death-

6.13

ant amount of money. The subject was
DOJ representatives, who expressed
g DOJ collaboration with
ervices representatives to find more
eamline DOJ's non-death decision-making

orney Voucher Management
3, an initial functional comparison was
A Voucher Payment System (VPS)and
processing system developed by the district
e comparison showed that eVoucher met
y functional requirements than eCJA VPS.
of the functional comparison, the
e issued a stop work order to the contractors
S and began a formal assessment ofthe two
her system will accomplish the same goals
ced on the eCJA VPS project at a lower
The eVoucher system will improve quality
rney payment vouchers as well as decrease
cost associated with processing payment
plan will be developed to address
further development.

NEL ATTORNEY RATES

Congress approved a $125 maximum hourly
ttorneys may be compensated in non-capital
below the fiscal year 2015 statutory
42(the statute provides for inflationary
te, subject to the availability of funds).

Congress also approved fiscal year 2010 funding to compensate
panel attorneys at the maximum rate of$178 per hour for work
performed in capital cases. Both fiscal year 2010 funding
increases became effective for work performed on or after
January 1, 2010.
The CJA authorizes the Judicial Conference to implement
annual cost-of-living adjustments(COLAs)for panel attorney
rates. If COLAs had been provided annually as authorized by
the statute, the non-capital rate'would reach $142 per hour in
fiscal year 2015 and the capital rate would rise to $181 per hour.
Like the rest of the federal government, no cost-of-living
adjustments or other increases have been funded for either the
non-capital or capital hourly rates since fiscal year 2010. The
judiciary did not pursue efforts to secure the full statutorily
authorized non-capital hourly rate for fiscal year 2012, fiscal
year 2013, or fiscal year 2014. Due to the dire fiscal
circumstances predicted for the judiciary and the federal
government overall, the judiciary deferred —for the third
consecutive year — requesting the full statutorily authorized noncapital rate for fiscal year 2014.
While the judiciary firmly believes that the full statutory rate of
$142 is justified for fiscal year 2015, it recognizes the fiscal
pressures Congress faces. Consequently, the judiciary has again
deferred —for the fourth consecutive year — seeking the full
statutorily authorized non-capital rate for fiscal year 2015.
However, the judiciary is requesting one-year COLAs to
increase the non-capital rate by $1 to an estimated $127, and
raise the capital rate by $1 to an estimated $181 per hour. The
CJA hourly panel attorney rates are meant to cover both
6.1-1

ately $70 per hour as of January 2009 for
nd a fair hourly fee. After deducting
orneys average $55 per hour before taxes (at
s has been reduced to a mere $40 per hour
y emergency rate reduction period, which
ncial hardships panel attorneys endure to

IFICATION OF CHANGES

request for appropriated funds is $1,053.2
of $8.8 million (0.8 percent) over the fiscal
ion of $1,044.4 million.

DJUSTMENTS TO BASE

ive provides information and justification
tments to base for this account.

ENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS

fJanuary 2014 pay adjustments

al pay adjustment
$1,088,000

eased by 1.0 percent in January 2014. The
ovides for the cost of three months(from
ember 2014)of the 2014 pay increase in

b.
nt

Panel attorney capital ECI rate adjustme

Requested Increase: $323,000
The requested funding annualizes the fiscal year
2014 panel
attorney capital rate cost-of-living increase of
l.0 percent(from
$178 per hour to $l 80 per hour). A rate incre
ase to the capital
hourly rate, effective on March 1, 2014, is
expected to have four
months of costs in fiscal year~2014. The reque
sted increase
annualizes this rate increase for the first eight mont
hs of fiscal
year 2015. Based on a lag time of three mont
hs, only four
months in fiscal year 2014 will be effected by
this rate change.
c.

Panel attorney non-capital ECI rate
adjustment

Requested Increase: $2,682,000
The requested increase annualizes the fisca
l
year
2014
panel
attorney non-capital rate increase (from $125 per
hour to $126
per hour). A rate increase to the non-capital
hour
ly
rate,
effective on March 1, 2014, is expected to have only
a minimal
impact on fiscal year 2014 costs. The requested
increase
provides for the remaining cost of eleven mont
hs not included in
the fiscal year 2014 base. Based on a lag time
of six months,
only one month in fiscal year 201.4 will be effec
ted by this rate
change.

6.15

y adjustment

5 pay adjustments

Requested Increase: $368,000

c.

Panel attorney non-capital ECI rate adjustment

60,000

3. Promotions ant! within-grade increases

ice of Management and Budget is
rates will increase by 1.0 percent
ry 1, 2015. The requested increase
e months of the anticipated pay
(from January 2015 to September

The requested funding would increase the non-capital panel
attorney hourly rate by an assumed ECI adjustment of l.0
percent. This would increase the hourly rate from an estimated
$126 to $127, effective January 1, 2015. There is a time delay
between when the rate increase is implemented and when
vouchers are submitted with the higher rate. Therefore, the
requested increase provides for the cost of three months of the
adjustment in fiscal year 2015.

ney capital ECI rate adjustment

Requested Increase: $3,260,000

Requested Increase: $1,109,000

4. Health benefits increase

The requested increase provides for promotions and withingrade increases for FDO personnel. The salary plan for federal
defender personnel provides for periodic within-grade increases
for staff who achieve at least satisfactory performance ratings.

,000

ld increase the capital panel attorney
ECI adjustment of l.0 percent. This
ate from an estimated $180 per hour
January 1, 2015. There is a time
e increase is implemented and when
h the higher rate. Therefore, the
s for the cost of six months of the rate
.

Based on information from the Office of Personnel
Management, health benefit premium contributions are projected
to increase by 3.7 percent in January 2014 and 4.0 percent in
January 2015. The requested increase annualizes the 2014
premium increase,
6.16

month provision for the anticipated fiscal
increase and other changes.

se

: $274,000

to provide for the base adjustment in
ons to the Old Age, Survivor, and Disability
portion of the FICA tax. The salary cap for
$113,700 in January 2013, and increased to
2014. The requested amount is needed to
ibution.

JUSTMENTS

onary adjustments

: $2,442,000

ance from the Office of Management and
is required to fund inflationary increases of
ting expenses such as travel, utilities,
supplies and materials, and furniture and

7. InJlationar~ increases in space rental costs
Requested Increase: $1,210,000
FDOs are located in both courthouses and private commercial
office space. The amount requested funds inflationary increases
of 2.4 percent for current space in fiscal year 2015.

8. Decrease in appropriation needed to maintain current
services
Requested Decrease:($7,372,000)
The judiciary has been able to reduce requirements for
appropriated funds through the use of unobligated no-year funds
carried forward from prior fiscal years. In fiscal year ?014,
$17.6 million in balances from fiscal year 2013 was available to
finance fiscal year 2014 requirements. In fiscal year 2015, the
judiciary expects $25.0 million in non-appropriated funds to be
available, an increase of $7.4 million from fiscal year 2014.
Therefore, a $7.4 million reduction in appropriations is
requested.

FTE: 2

9. Annualization offour circuit CJA case-budgeting attorney
positions
Requested Increase: $403,000

The requested increase would annualize the costs of four case
budgeting attorney positions in fiscal year 2015. Currently,
6.17

geting attorneys -one in each of the
econd, Sixth and Ninth), and four
to be hired in fiscal year 2014. This
four positions in fiscal year 2015.

r new circuit CJA case-budgeting

($403,000)

he four new case-budgeting attorney
n offsetting savings of $403,000 in panel

ISCAL YEAR 2015 REQUEST

yforwardfromfiscal _year 2014 intofiscal

lable: $25,000,000

$25.0 million will be available through
carry forward from fiscal year 2014 into
ffset the fiscal year 2015 appropriation
er services program. Savings are related to
bligated FDO funds due to severely
levels. The judiciary will advise
mmittee staffs of changes to this estimate.