United States v. Felix Rendon Osuna, 141 F.3d 1412, 10th Cir. (1998)

141 F.
3d 1412
98 CJ C.A.R. 1980
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
Felix Rendon OSUNA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 98-5005.
United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.
Decided April 22, 1998.
Before PORFILIO and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
This direct criminal appeal is before the court on appellant Felix Rendon
Osuna's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed in response to the district court's
denial of appellant's Application for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and Costs ("Application"). We deny appellant's motion to dismiss without
prejudice, vacate the district court's order denying the Application, and remand
this appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of reconsideration of the
Application in light of this order.
Background
2
Mr. Osuna was represented by retained counsel at trial. Subsequent to filing his
notice of appeal in this matter, Mr. Osuna's trial counsel submitted the
Application for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs to the
district court, "pursuant to 1915." The district court denied the Application,
stating:
3 this point, the Court notes that Osuna has provided the proper financial records
At
with his motion. However, this does not conclude the Court's inquiry. The Court
may dismiss an in forma pauperis motion sua sponte as frivolous when said motion
is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if it is founded on clearly
baseless factual contentions." Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th
Cir.1997) (citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).

4
United States v. Osuna, No. 97-CR-110-C (N.D. Okla. Order filed Feb. 18,
1998) at 2.
While the district court was considering his Application, Mr. Osuna submitted
motions to this court for free transcripts, for permission for trial counsel to
withdraw, and for appointment of counsel on appeal. In light of the district
court's order, this court denied these motions without prejudice to renewal, and
ordered Mr. Osuna to submit a motion "for leave to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915;" to pay the filing
fee, notify the court that he had retained substitute counsel, and submit a
transcript order form; or to pay the filing fee, notify the court that he wished to
proceed pro se, and submit a transcript order form. Instead, Mr. Osuna filed a
motion to dismiss, stating that he could not afford to prosecute the appeal.
Discussion
6
"In forma pauperis " and "ifp" are commonly used in the federal courts to refer
generically to parties who are proceeding in actions without the benefit of
sufficient funds to prepay costs and fees or to pay for the representation of an
attorney. However, use of the terms "in forma pauperis " and "ifp" must be
interpreted with care. Requests for representation in criminal matters, including
direct criminal appeals and the ancillary costs and fees attendant with an
appeal, fall under the standards and procedures set forth under the Criminal
Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, rather than those set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915.
28 U.S.C. 1915 sets forth the procedures and standards for proceeding in the
federal courts in forma pauperis. Subsection (a) specifically states that its
provisions apply to both civil and criminal actions, defenses, and appeals. That
said, however, various provisions of section 1915 have been carved out as
inapplicable to direct criminal cases. Most importantly, the provisions of
section 1915 which were revised as part of the Prisoner Reform Litigation Act
of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996)("PLRA"), apply
only to civil actions and appeals. See, e.g., United States v. Simmonds, 111
F.3d 737 (10th Cir.1997).
In contrast, 18 U.S.C. 3006A of the Criminal Justice Act, sets forth the
procedures and standards by which financially eligible criminal defendants, in a
wide variety of defined criminal proceedings, may be provided with counsel in
furtherance of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Section 3006A(c)
provides that "[i]f at any stage of the proceedings, including an appeal, the
United States magistrate or the court finds that the person is financially unable
to pay counsel whom he had retained, it may appoint counsel as provided in
subsection (b) and authorize payment as provided in subsection (d), as the
interests of justice may dictate."
9
A different financial standard applies under section 3006A than is used in

section 1915 analysis. The standard for eligibility for section 3006A
appointment is not indigence, but rather whether the party is "financially unable
to obtain counsel." United States v. de Hernandez, 745 F.2d 1305, 1310 (10th
Cir.1984); see also VII Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, chap. II,
2.04 (specific standards for financial eligibility for appointment of counsel).
10
Eligibility for representation pursuant to section 3006A in a direct criminal

appeal affects other fees and costs. For example, "[i]f a person for whom
counsel is appointed under this section appeals to an appellate court or petitions
for a writ of certiorari, he may do so without prepayment of fees and costs or
security therefore and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of
title 28." 18 U.S.C. 3006A(d)(6). And, "[i]n order to obtain necessary parts of
the transcripts, or, if required, the entire transcript, in a direct appeal in a case in
which counsel is assigned pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, neither the Act
nor Section 735(f) of title 28 ... requires the signing of a pauper's oath or
certification by the Court that the appeal is not frivolous." VII Guide to
Judiciary Policies and Procedures, chap. III, 3.12(A)(2)(emphasis added).
11
The appeal before us is a clear example of the tangle in which district courts
and courts of appeal become enmeshed if we do not separate requests for
appointment of counsel in direct criminal appeals from the standards of 28
U.S.C. 1915. Although the matter before us is a direct criminal appeal, both
the district court and this court referred to the Application as proceeding
"pursuant to 1915." The district court cited a section 1983 prisoner civil rights
case, Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777 (10th Cir.1997), to which the
provisions of PLRA do apply, as precedent for applying the section 1915
frivolousness standard in this direct criminal appeal, to which the provisions of
PLRA do not apply.
12
We agree with the Ninth Circuit that the right to representation in a direct
criminal appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A is not subject to the district
court's determination of frivolousness. United States v. Dangdee, 608 F.2d 807
(9th Cir.1979), contra United States v. Boutwell, 896 F.2d 884, 889 (5th
Cir.1990)(finding of frivolousness of appeal by district court eliminates right to
appointed counsel on appeal, even in 3006A context). We note appellate
counsel's obligation to notify the court that an appeal is frivolous. See, e.g.,
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The
determination of the frivolousness of a direct criminal appeal is the
responsibility of the court of appeals in its determination on the merits of the
appeal. To reiterate, the standards of 28 U.S.C. 1915 do not apply to
applications to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, or for
appointment of counsel, in direct criminal appeals.
Conclusion
13
We deny appellant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, vacate the district

court's order denying Mr. Osuna's Application to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of fees or costs, and remand this appeal to the district court for the
limited purpose of reconsideration of appellant's Application in light of this
order.

United States v. Felix Rendon Osuna, 141 F.3d 1412, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Felix Rendon Osuna, 141 F.3d 1412, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Felix Rendon Osuna, 141 F.3d 1412, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

141 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals,

Before PORFILIO and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Cir.1997) (citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).

A different financial standard applies under section 3006A than is used in

Eligibility for representation pursuant to section 3006A in a direct criminal

We deny appellant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, vacate the district

You might also like