Lopez, et al v. Astrue, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 07-10048
Summary Calendar
_______________________
OSCAR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Abilene
No. 1:05-CV-00137
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Lopez challenges the district court’s
calculation of his award for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act. We affirm.
The district court awarded attorney’s fees at the rate of
$140.00 per hour, a rate the Magistrate Judge determined was
reasonable and appropriate in the Abilene Division to ensure
adequate representation for those who need it, as required by
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). Appellants contend that the court

-- 1 of 2 --

2
abused its discretion because all attorneys should be reimbursed
using the statutory cap of $125.00 per hour, adjusted by the
national Consumer Price Index for All Urban Customers (“CPI-U”).
This method would produce a fee of $156.25 per hour.
This court rejected a similar argument in Yoes v.
Barnhart, 467 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2006), concluding that rate
uniformity is not required even across a single district: “[R]ate
disparities between courts serving two different markets is more
than reasonable; indeed, it is expressly contemplated by the Act
itself.” Id. at 427. The district court did not err by refusing
to apply the CPI-U, and the rate awarded here is more generous than
that in Yoes.
Under the abuse of discretion standard, see Baker v.
Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1082 (5th Cir. 1988), we cannot say that
$140.00 per hour, $15.00 per hour higher than the statutory cap,
does not adequately provide for representation in Abilene.
Accordingly, the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees
and costs is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --