2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-1-2008 

# U SA v . R aghun ath an P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4800

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . R aghun ath a n " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 736. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/736B L D - 242 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4800

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S RI KANT H R AGHUN AT HAN; P ADMAS HR I S AM P AT HKUMAR A p p e llan ts

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- C R - 00240) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew ar tC er cone

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J une 26, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Sr i kanth R aghunathan and Padmas hr i Sam pathkum ar , hus band and w i fe, resp ec ti v ely , ap p ea l from an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e W esternT he docke tdoes notr efl ectanyG overnm entr es pons e t o R aghunathan’ s m ot i ons , but 1 th e m o tio n s w e re n e a rlyid e n tica l. 2 D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch deni ed thei rm ot i ons forpl ea he ar i ng t r ans cr i pt s and se n ten c in g tra n sc rip ts. A s n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is p re se n ted b yth e a p p e a l, w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he or derof t he D i s t r i ctC our t . T hi r d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6. R aghunathan and Sampat hkum areac h pl eade d gui l t yt o Fr audul entR epr es ent at i on in C o n n e c tio n w ith a L o a n A p p lica tio n f ro m a F e d e ra llyIn su re d F in a n c ial In stitu tio n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 1 4 . J u d g m e n ts w e re e n te re d a g a in s t th e tw o o n M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . A n A m ended J udgm entw as ent er ed aga i ns tSam pathkum aron M ay18, 2007, and a Second A m ended J udgm entw as ent er ed aga i ns theron J une 26, 2007. A n A m ended J udgm entw as al s o ent er ed aga i ns tR aghunathan on J une 26, 2007. N eart he end of

N ovember 2007, eac h fi l ed mot i ons fors ent enci ng t r ans cr i pt s and forpl ea he ar i ng t r ans cr i pt s . T he mot i ons as ked thatt he tr ans cr i pt s be pr epar ed pur s uant t o t he C r i m i nal J us t i ce A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 3006A , and i ndi cat ed thatt he movant di d not h a v e n e c e ss a ryf

u n d s to p u rc h a se th e tra n sc rip ts. E a c h m o tio n sta ted th a t th e tra n sc rip ts w oul d be nec es s aryfort he “e val uat i on of pot ent i al appea l s i s s ue af fec t i ng cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts o f th e p e titio n e r.” T he G overnm entr es ponded t o Sam pathkum ar ’ s m ot i ons , ar gui ng t hat§ 3006A 1 does notr equi r e the C our tort he G overnm entt o payfort r ans cr i pt s w hen no pr ocee di ngs ar e pendi ng i n t he di s t r i ctcour tort he courtof appe al s . T he G overnm ental s o not ed t hat3

Sam pathkum arhad w ai ved herr i ghtt o appea l and t o col l at er al l yat t ack he rconvi ct i on, exce pti n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , w hi ch di d notappl y , and thatSam pathkum arhad not fi l ed a t i m el yappea l ora mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen deni ed R aghunathan’ s and Sampat hkum ar ’ s m ot i ons , not i ng t hatt heyhad “f i l ed nei t her a n a p p e a l n o r a p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 .” T he C r i m i nal J us t i ce A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 3006A , pr ovi des i n par tt hat“[a ] per s on for w h o m c o u n se l is a p p o in ted sh a ll b e re p re se n ted a t ev e rysta g e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s f

ro m h is i ni t i al appea r ance . . . t hr ough appea l , i ncl udi ng anci l l arym at t er s appr opr i at e t o t he pr ocee di ngs . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( c) . C ouns el m ayal s o be appoi nt ed fora per s on “s eeki ng r el i ef unde rs ect i on 2241, 2254, or2255 of t i t l e 28" i f t he court“ det er m i nes t hat t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce s o r equi r e. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( a) ( 2) ( B ) . C ouns el w ho has been appoi nt ed “f

ora per s on w ho i s fi nanci al l yunabl e t o obt ai n i nves t i gat i ve, expert , orot her se rv ice s n e c e ss a ryf

o r a d e q u a te r e p re se n tatio n m a yre q u e st th e m in a n e x p a rte appl i cat i on. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( e) ( 1) . N ece s s aryt r ans cr i pt s ar e i ncl uded w i t hi n t he

“ s e rv ic e s ” a u th o ri z e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . B ro w n , 4 4 3 F .2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 0 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 7 0 ). Fur t her , 28 U . S. C . § 753( f) pr ovi des t hatt he U ni t ed St at es w i l l paya courtr epor t erfor tra n sc rip ts a u th o riz e d b yth e C rim in a l Ju stic e A c t, an d sh a ll also p a yf o r tra n sc rip ts in p r o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 b r o u g h tb yp e r s o n s p r o c e e d i n g i n f o r ma pauper i s , “i f t he tr i al j udge ora ci r cui tj udge ce r t i fi es t hatt he s ui torappea l i s not fr i vol ous and thatt he tr ans cr i pti s neede d t o deci de the i s s ue pr es ent ed byt he s ui torA p p e llan ts’ m o tio n s f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l ar e d e n ied a s m o o t. 2 4 ap p ea l. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 7 5 3 (f). N eit h er o f th ese statu tes au tho ri ze the U n it ed S tat es to p ayfo r a trans cript w h ere no pr ocee di ng i s pendi ng. See W al kerv. U ni t ed St at es , 424 F. 2d 278, 279 ( 5 C i r . 1970) th ( fede r al pr i s onernotent i t l ed t o obt ai n copi es of cour tr ecor ds atG overnm entexpens e for purpos e of s ear chi ng t he r ecor d forpos s i bl e err or ) ; H ar l es s v. U ni t ed St at es , 329 F. 2d 397, 398- 99 ( 5 C i r . 1964) ( s t atut or yr i ghtt o pr ocee d i n for m a paupe r i s does noti ncl ude th r i ghtt o obt ai n copi es of t r ans cr i pt s , w i t houtpaym entt her efor , forus e i n pr opos ed or p rosp ec ti v e li ti g ati o n ). W e the ref o re w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 2