Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40136/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40136-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40136

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID ALAN VOGEL, also known as David Allan Vogel,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-323

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Alan Vogel, federal prisoner # 09472-049, has filed a motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To obtain leave to proceed 

IFP on appeal, Vogel must demonstrate financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous 

issue for appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. 

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

* 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

FILED

March 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40136 Document: 00512953173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2015
No. 14-40136

Vogel seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for release 

pending disposition of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Release should be granted 

to an offender pending collateral review “only when the petitioner has raised 

substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of 

success, and also when extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist which 

make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective.” Calley 

v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974).

In his IFP motion and supporting brief, Vogel argues that the 

extraordinary circumstance of excessive delay exists and that his postconviction remedy will not be effective unless he is released. Regardless of the 

merits of Vogel’s § 2255 claims, upon which the district court has not yet ruled, 

Vogel has failed to show the existence of any “extraordinary or exceptional 

circumstances” necessitating his release to make the post-conviction remedy 

effective. See Calley, 496 F.2d at 702-03 & n.1. Although Vogel is correct that 

the district court did not apply the Calley standard, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying Vogel’s motion for release based on the 

application of the proper standards. See id.

Vogel has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on 

appeal. His motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Vogel’s 

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. To the extent 

that Vogel’s pleadings may be construed as a motion for release pending appeal 

directed to this court, no appeal is pending and such motion is DENIED.

IFP DENIED; RELEASE PENDING APPEAL DENIED; APPEAL 

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

2

Case: 14-40136 Document: 00512953173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2015