The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules requested this report on circuit practices for awarding costs under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The report describes the variations among the circuits' rules and procedures, compares how the circuits have implemented Fed. R. App. P 39, and presents a comparative analysis of costs awards. It also offers some procedural and conclusory observations from the research.

A description of procedures in six stages of the appellate process: notification, documentation, argumentation, decision, publication, and mandate. The report also describes procedures related to judicial conferences, councils, committees, and circuit executives; bar admission and regulation; court support personnel, staff attorneys, and libraries. Procedures in each of the federal courts of appeals are identified and compared.

The District of Maryland, the Central District of California, and the Northern District of California have each received special funds to create a position called “Criminal Justice Act Supervising Attorney” on a pilot basis. The purpose of these positions is to assist the courts in carrying out their responsibilities under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). The purpose of this report is to provide the Judicial Conference and its committees with information about how having these positions worked.

At its June 2004 meeting, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure asked the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee to ask the Federal Judicial Center to conduct empirical research that would help the Standing Committee in its consideration of a proposed new Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would permit attorneys and courts in federal appeals in all circuits to cite the court's unpublished opinions. The Center's research effort consisted of three components: (1) a survey of judges, (2) a survey of attorneys, and (3) a survey of case files. The rule, as amended and approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2005 and approved by the Supreme Court in April 2006, applies only to opinions issued in 2007 or later. The rule became effective December 1, 2006.