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.