Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jha

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 13, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MANOJ KUMAR JHA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          ELLEN L. HOLLANDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On 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.[1] The government filed a response in opposition to the Motion on May 5, 2016 (ECF 171, “Opposition”), and Jha replied. ECF 172 (“Reply”).

         In the 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.

         No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall DENY both motions.

         I. Background

         Jha was 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).

         Numerous 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.

         The 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.

         At the 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         II. Discussion

         A. The Government’s Belated Motion for Extension

         Jha 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.