United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. HOLLANDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 29, 2016, Manoj Kumar Jha, who is now
self-represented, filed “Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 Motion To
Vacate The Judgment Of Conviction, Sentence And Restitution,
And Order a New Trial (‘Rule 33 Motion’).”
ECF 166 (the “Motion” or the “Rule 33
Motion”). Jha appended several exhibits to his
Motion. The government filed a response in
opposition to the Motion on May 5, 2016 (ECF 171,
“Opposition”), and Jha replied. ECF 172
interim, on March 21, 2016, the government requested an
extension of time in which to respond to the Motion,
explaining that counsel was about to start a four week trial.
ECF 167. I granted the request for extension on the same
date. ECF 168. Thereafter, Jha filed an opposition to the
request for extension. ECF 169. In addition, he filed a
“Motion To Reconsider And Recall Order ‘ECF
168’ Filed 3/21/16; And Issue a New Order Denying
Government’s Request For Extension of Time To File A
Response To Rule 33 Motion (‘Motion To
Reconsider’).” ECF 170 (“Motion to
Reconsider”). In both the Rule 33 Motion and the Motion
to Reconsider, Jha asserts that the government’s
request for extension was filed four days after the deadline
and the late filing prejudiced him. He adds that the
government “should not benefit from flouting court
deadlines . . . .” ECF 169 at 2.
hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. Local Rule
105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall DENY both
indicted on November 14, 2012. ECF 1. In a Superseding
Indictment filed on August 21, 2013 (ECF 49), Jha was charged
with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; falsification
of records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and
federal program fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 666. In
addition, the Superseding Indictment contained a forfeiture
count, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).
pretrial motions were filed by the defense in the case. These
included the following: ECF 12 (motion to suppress
statements); ECF 19 (motion to dismiss indictment and motion
to suppress evidence; ECF 52 (motion to quash indictment);
ECF 53 (motion to suppress proffer statement and dismiss
proffer agreement); ECF 54 (motion to dismiss counts One and
Eight; ECF 55 (motion to inspect transcripts of grand jury
testimony); ECF 56 (motion to suppress statements and
tangible evidence); ECF 57 (motion to strike
government’s Rule 404(b) Notice); ECF 58 (motion in
limine); ECF 65 (motion in limine). Motion hearings were held
on February 14, 2014 (ECF 77); February 19, 2014 (ECF 83);
and February 24, 2014 (ECF 89). The Court denied the various
defense motions. See ECF 78; ECF 87; ECF 96.
Court presided over a nine-day jury trial that commenced on
February 18, 2014. See ECF 100, ECF101. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty on April 1, 2014, as to all
counts. ECF 118; ECF 119.
sentencing held on August 29, 2014 (ECF 134), the Court
sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of 36
months’ incarceration and ordered restitution in the
amount of $105, 726.31. Judgment was entered on September 11,
2014. See ECF 137. The defendant noted an appeal to
the Fourth Circuit. ECF 135.
appeal, Jha raised several issues. See ECF 163. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the defendant’s convictions on June 4, 2015,
in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. ECF 163. The mandate
issued on June 26, 2015. ECF 164.
September 1, 2015, Jha filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. See
ECF 162-2. According to both Jha and the government, on
September 16, 2015, the Solicitor General waived the
government’s right to file a response. See ECF
166 at 9; ECF 171 at 2. The United States Supreme Court
denied the defendant’s petition on October 13, 2015.
ECF 166 at 9; ECF 171 at 2. On November 6, 2015, Jha filed a
petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court. See ECF
166-4. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s
petition for rehearing on December 7, 2015. ECF 166 at 9; ECF
171 at 2. Jha’s Motion followed on February 25, 2016.
Government’s Belated Motion for Extension
complains that the government belatedly filed its request for
an extension of time in which to respond to his Rule 33
Motion. In particular, he notes that the prosecutor’s
request was four days late. See ECF 169; ECF 170.
Jha points out that the deadline to file the request was
March 17, 2016, yet it was not filed until March 21, 2016.
See, e.g., ECF 170 at 2. Further, ...