United States v. Hatfield
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
108 F.3d 67 (1997)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Fred L. Hatfield Sr., doing-business-as HVAC Construction Company, Inc. (Hatfield) (plaintiff), was a government contractor who made numerous false statements and submissions to the government (defendant) over a period of several years. The government estimated that Hatfield’s fraudulent conduct caused up to $60,000 in direct losses to the government and additional unquantified losses to Hatfield’s suppliers and subcontractors. As a result, the government debarred Hatfield for 26 months. Subsequently, the government also issued a criminal indictment against Hatfield for the same fraudulent conduct that resulted in Hatfield’s debarment. Hatfield filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it was prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Hatfield alleged that the debarment constituted a criminal penalty, rather than a civil remedy, because the debarment cost Hatfield over $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees, lost profits, and expenses, which was far in excess of the direct losses the government suffered as a result of Hatfield’s fraudulent conduct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Niemeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
