Case ID: f-appx_285/html/0845-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. Srikanth RAGHUNATHAN; Padmashri Sampathkumar, Appellants.
    No. 08-1941.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 26, 2008.
    Opinion filed: Aug. 1, 2008.
    Brendan T. Conway, Esq., Robert L. Eberhardt, Esq., Laura S. Irwin, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America.
    Srikanth Raghunathan, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
    
      Padmashri Sampathkumar, Danbury, CT, pro se.
    Before: McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Srikanth Raghunathan and Padmashri Sampathkumar, husband and wife, respectively, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which denied their motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). As no substantial question is presented by the appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.

Raghunathan and Sampathkumar sought authorization from the District Court to proceed IFP in the appeal of a District Court order denying their motions for plea hearing transcripts and sentencing transcripts. Although the District Court denied the motions to proceed IFP, this Court granted the motions that Raghunathan and Sampathkumar presented to this Court to proceed IFP in that appeal. See C.A. No. 07-4800, order entered April 14, 2008. Thus, the question of whether the District Court properly denied the motions is moot. As that is the only question presented by this appeal, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Government of Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276, 285 (3d Cir.2004) (federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear claim that does not present live case or controversy). 
      
      . That order also authorized the couple to proceed IFP in this appeal.