USA v. Gonzalez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
VANESSA GONZALEZ,
Defendant.
8:24CR59
ORDER
On January 12, 2026, the Court granted (Filing No. 137) defendant Vanessa
Gonzalez’s (“Gonzalez”) motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal (Filing No. 136).
Pursuant to that order, Gonzalez timely filed her notice of appeal by the extended
deadline—January 13, 2026 (Filing No. 138).
Gonzalez now moves the Court for an order granting her in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
status retroactive to that date (Filing No. 142). 	In addition to IFP status, Gonzalez also
asks the Court to appoint her trial counsel, attorney Stuart J. Dornan (“Dornan”), to
represent her throughout the appeal.
Dornan explains it was always Gonzalez’s intention to proceed on appeal IFP, but
he could not reach her before the filing deadline, so he paid the $605 filing fee to avoid
prejudicing her. 	A party “may proceed on appeal [IFP] without further authorization” if
they were “permitted to proceed [IFP] in the district-court action,” or were “determined to
be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case[.]” 	Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(3). Although Gonzalez ultimately retained Dornan to represent her in the district-
court action (Filing No. 106), the magistrate judge had initially found she was eligible for
appointed counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (Filing No. 9). 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A.
8:24-cr-00059-RFR-RCC Doc # 146 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Additionally, a party desiring to appeal IFP may “file a motion in the district court”
and include an affidavit that “shows . . . the party’s inability to pay or to give security for
fees and costs[,] (B) claims an entitlement to redress[,] and (C) states the issues that the
party intends to present on appeal.” 	Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). 	Here, Gonzalez has
submitted a financial affidavit supporting her assertion that she cannot prepay the docket
fees of her appeal or post a bond for them (Filing No. 144).
After carefully reviewing the circumstances in this case and Gonzalez’s sworn
affidavit, the Court finds Gonzalez’s request to proceed IFP on appeal satisfies the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a).
The Court now turns to Gonzalez’s second request that the Court appoint Dornan to
represent her throughout the appeal. This request should be addressed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 	Under the Eighth Circuit’s local rules, a
“[d]efendant’s trial counsel, whether retained or appointed, shall represent the defendant
on appeal, unless the Court of Appeals grants permission to withdraw.” 8th Cir. R. 27B(a).
Thus, because Gonzalez retained Dornan to represent her in the district court, he “shall
represent [her] on appeal” unless the Eighth Circuit allows him to withdraw. See id. Any
questions he has regarding a change in his status should be directed to the Eighth Circuit.
See 8th Cir. R. 27A(11) (providing that the Clerk for the Eighth Circuit may grant orders
regarding the “appointment of counsel on appeal in cases prosecuted under the Criminal
Justice Act”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	Defendant Vanessa Gonzalez’s “Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis” (Filing No. 142) is granted in part and denied in part. Gonzalez’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to refund Gonzalez’s counsel the $605 filing
fee he paid for her notice of appeal.
8:24-cr-00059-RFR-RCC Doc # 146 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
Dated this 21st day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
8:24-cr-00059-RFR-RCC Doc # 146 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>