IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31103
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRYL W. TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-261-B-M2
USDC No. 98-CR-24-ALL-B
--------------------
May 9, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darryl W. Taylor has filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To obtain leave to proceed IFP
on appeal, Taylor must show that he is unable to pay the cost of
his appeal. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261
(5th Cir. 1986). He must also demonstrate that he will raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-31103
-2-
Taylor wishes to argue on appeal that the district court
erred in denying his motion for release pending disposition of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence. Taylor contends that he is entitled to release because
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raises meritorious issues.
Release pending disposition of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
will be granted only when the petitioner has raised a substantial
constitutional claim 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). Regardless of the merits of Taylor’s claims, upon
which the district court has not yet ruled, Taylor has not
pointed to any “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” which
necessitate his release to make the post-conviction remedy
effective. The district court did not err by denying Taylor’s
motion for release.
Taylor has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue
on appeal. Taylor’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED. His appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.