Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cr-00184/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cr-00184-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Benjamin Smith
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : 

vs. : CRIMINAL ACTION 07-00184-CG 

 : 

RONALD BENJAMIN SMITH : 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Notice of Appeal 

(Doc. 53) and Affidavit or Declaration in Support of Motion for 

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 56), which has been 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the 

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied because 

the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

On January 11, 2008, Defendant was sentenced after pleading 

guilty to counts one and four of the indictment, namely, 

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and using and carrying a firearm during 

a drug trafficking felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1) 

(Doc. 47). On April 15, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for 

Judicial Review of Government’s Failure to File a Rule 35(b) 

Motion on Behalf of Defendant (Doc. 51), which motion was denied 

by Endorsed Order on April 22, 2011 (Doc. 52). It is this order 

that Defendant is appealing. Defendant has not stated what 

issues he is raising on appeal or how the order is in error. 

Case 1:07-cr-00184-CG-B Document 57 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 3
2

After a review of the Affidavit or Declaration in Support 

of Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (without the 

statement of his prison account or other documentation of his 

assets and income), it appears that Defendant may not have the 

present financial inability to pay the filing fees. The Court 

notes that Defendant had appointed counsel throughout the 

proceedings, including sentencing. However, even if though the 

Court found that Defendant does not have the present ability to 

pay the filing fees, a party may not appeal in forma pauperis

unless the District Court also certifies that the appeal is 

taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The test for whether 

an appeal is taken in good faith is whether Defendant seeks 

appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. See Ex 

parte Chayoon, 2007 WL 1099088, *1(M.D. Fla. 2007). In other 

words, an appeal that is plainly frivolous cannot be taken 

without the prepayment of fees and costs. See United States v. 

Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1997); Clements v. 

Wainwright, 648 F.2d 979, 981 (5th Cir. 1981). In the appealed 

Order, the Court clearly set out its reasons for denying 

Defendant’s Motion, namely, that the plea agreement gave the 

Government sole discretion as to whether or not a motion for 

downward departure was to be filed and that Defendant had not 

made a “substantial threshold showing” that the refusal to file 

a Rule 35(b) motion is based on a constitutionally impermissible 

Case 1:07-cr-00184-CG-B Document 57 Filed 05/17/11 Page 2 of 3
3

motive (Doc. 52). Defendant has merely filed a Notice of Appeal 

and an Affidavit or Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without claiming any entitlement to 

redress or stating the issues he intends to present on appeal, 

as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 (a). 

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis is due to be denied since it is frivolous and not taken 

in good faith. 

 In conclusion, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion 

for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and that the 

District Judge certify in writing that Defendant’s appeal is 

frivolous and not taken in good faith. Since this 

recommendation is made after a referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(3), Defendant does not have the opportunity to file an 

objection. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th

Cir. 1998)(“Section 636(b)(3) does not provide a party with ten 

days to file written objections with the district court.”). The 

Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to refer this Report and 

Recommendation to the District Judge without the necessity of a 

waiting period. 

DONE this 17th day of May, 2011. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cr-00184-CG-B Document 57 Filed 05/17/11 Page 3 of 3