Appeal fees for poor litigants

1. Whether a district court's certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal is "not taken in good faith" is subject to de novo review, as the Seventh and Fifth Circuits hold, or abuse-of-discretion review, as the Sixth Circuit holds, where the circuits are intractably split on the standard of review for a statutory provision governing access to the federal courts for indigent litigants. 2. Whether a court of appeals may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal by applying the "inability to pay" standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) rather than the "good faith" standard of § 1915(a)(3), thereby conflating two distinct statutory requirements and denying appellate review without ever determining whether the appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue. 3. Whether a district court acts arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Due Process Clause when it simultaneously offers to reopen a case upon payment of fees and certifies under § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, where the two findings are logically irreconcilable. 4. Whether a district court violates procedural due process by denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis without holding an evidentiary hearing, where the court has "strong reason to believe" the poverty affidavit is implausible.