Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03196/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Frank Bagguley
Appellant
Warden, USP-Leavenworth
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~D 

United States Co11rt (?f Appe:i.ls Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 1 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk DAVID FRANK BAGGULEY, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

WARDEN, USP-LEAVENWORTH, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

No. 91-3196 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3023) 

(D. Kans.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner appeals the district court's order denying him 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and finding that the appeal in 

this matter is frivolous. He appeals on the grounds that the 

district court erred in refusing to waive or defer a $25,000 fine 

imposed in connection with a ten-year sentence imposed by the 

District Court for the Southern District of New York. Petitioner 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3196 Document: 010110091367 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 1 
alleges that he has completed the ten-year sentence to which the 

$25,000 fine pertains, and that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3569, his fine 

should be waived or deferred. Petitioner does not, however, meet 

the clear statutory requirements of section 3569 which require 

that a petitioner thereunder be confined to prison "solely for the 

nonpayment of such fine, or fine and costs." Petitioner in this 

case is presently serving an aggregate sentence in excess of 

seventy years and is not confined solely due to the nonpayment of 

his committed fine. Therefore, he does not satisfy the threshold 

requirements of section 3569. 

Petitioner also alleges that he has a right to be considered 

for transfer to his country of citizenship under unspecified 

treaty rights or under the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. These arguments are without merit. To the extent 

that the arguments relate to transfer pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 C.F.R. § 527.43, we agree with the district court that this 

petitioner has not qualified for consideration under that section 

because he has failed to obtain the permission of the court 

imposing the fine. We therefore agree with the district court 

that this appeal is frivolous. The motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3196 Document: 010110091367 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 2