IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 9, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 203) for production of transcripts, filed by defendant Richard Soto ("Soto"), wherein Soto requests a copy of the transcript of the December 22, 2009 hearing on the motion (Doc. 189) for return of seized property, and it appearing that the court denied Soto's motion for return of seized property without prejudice, (see Doc. 197), and that Soto appealed the court's order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, (see Doc. 199), and it further appearing that Soto is proceeding in forma pauperis, but does not explain in the instant motion (Doc. 203) why his appeal is not frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (stating that the government shall pay for transcripts in the case of individuals permitted to appeal in forma pauperis provided that a judge "certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous"), it is hereby ORDERED that Soto shall forthwith file a response detailing the basis for his appeal and the reasons why it is not frivolous.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.