
    Ronald Roy HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 83-5749.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 1984.
    Decided June 5, 1984.
    
      Michael M. Angello, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
    Michael Walsh, Warren P. Reese, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for defendantappellee.
    Before KENNEDY, PREGERSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges:
   On February 14, 1984 this court entered an order worded as follows:

Appellant’s renewed motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted to the extent that preparation of the reporter’s transcript shall be at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).

The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has refused payment to the court reporter because the February 14 order did not specifically state that the appeal was “not frivolous (but presents a substantial issue).”

An order of this court directing production of a transcript at government expense pursuant to § 753(f) implicitly embodies a finding by the court that the appeal presents a substantial issue. Indeed, the court could not enter such an order without necessarily reaching such a conclusion. The February 14 order, and like orders from this court, shall be interpreted as certifications under § 753(f) by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Furthermore, a finding is made nunc pro tunc that this appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial issue.

The Administrative Office will compensate the reporter for the transcript produced pursuant to the February 14 order.  