1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 3 DISTRICT OF OREGON 4 DENISE DEON RAMIREZ, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01192-HL 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER AWARDING vs. 7 ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTIC ACT, 28 8 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL U.S.C. § 2412, et. seq. SECURITY, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 For the reasons set forth in the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees under 13 the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

, et seq., and good cause 14 shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 15 16 Plaintiff is hereby awarded $1,346.48 in fees and $0.00 in expenses under the 17 EAJA. Under Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court 18 19 belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program 20 pursuant to

(c)(3)(B). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to 21 Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney. 22 23 If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines 24 that Plaintiff has assigned her right to EAJA fees to her attorney; (2) determines that 25 Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 26 27 and (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees 28 will be made payable to Plaintiff’ s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the 1 1 || Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a

4 ||check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. DATED: February 5, 2024

8 AndrewD.Hallman 9 U.S. Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2