US v. Manoj Jha

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999595919].. [14-4717]

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MANOJ KUMAR JHA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2015

Decided:

June 4, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel J.
Maryland,
Attorney,
Baltimore,

Wright, LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. WRIGHT, Rockville,
for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Martin J. Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Manoj Kumar Jha was convicted of
three counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count
of

falsification

of

federal program.
imprisonment

records,

and

one

count

of

theft

from

a

The district court sentenced Jha to 36 months’

on

each

count

to

run

concurrently,

and

ordered

restitution in the amount of $68,078.31 to the National Science
Foundation

and

$37,648

to

the

Department

of

Defense.

Jha

appeals, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion
to suppress evidence and statements, denial of his request for a
hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and
denial of his motion in limine by which he sought to exclude
evidence of the content of a slide presentation shown during a
workshop he attended.

Jha also challenges the district court’s

determination of the amount of loss, and the restitution order.
Finding no error by the district court, we affirm.
Jha moved to suppress evidence discovered as a result of
the

execution

of

a

search

warrant

concerning

his

work

email

address when the search warrant affidavit purported to establish
probable cause to search one address, but the warrant itself
listed

a

different

email

address.

No

relevant

evidence

was

discovered as a result of the execution of this search warrant.
Rather, the Government acquired the email evidence it sought
from another source.

Thus, any error by the district court in
2

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 7

denying Jha’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his
work email account was harmless.

See Hudson v. Michigan, 547

U.S. 586, 591 (2006) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371
U.S. 471, 487-88 (1963)).
Next, Jha challenges the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search of his
residence,

arguing

that

the

search

warrant

directed

to

his

business was overly broad because the scope of the search was
not limited to the basement of his home, from where he operated
his

business.

Because

all

public

documentation

as

to

Jha’s

company lists his home address as the address for the business,
without limitation such as floor designation or suite number, we
find no error in the district court’s determination that the
search warrant satisfied the requirement that it describe with
particularity the place to be searched.

See U.S. Const. amend.

IV; United States v. Owens, 848 F.2d 462, 463 (4th Cir. 1988)
(holding

that

search

warrant

satisfies

the

particularity

requirement if the description enables an officer to ascertain
and identify the place to be searched with reasonable effort).
We also find no error by the district court in denying
Jha’s request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438
U.S.

154

(1978).

Jha

asserted

that

the

special

agent,

in

seeking a search warrant, failed to inform the magistrate judge
of the two different work email addresses Jha used and also
3

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 4 of 7

failed to inform the magistrate judge that Jha’s business was
operated only from the basement of the home.
To warrant a Franks hearing, the defendant must show that
the officer seeking a warrant omitted facts from the affidavit
with the intent to mislead or with reckless disregard to whether
the affidavit is misleading.
449, 454 (4th Cir. 2008).
presented

at

the

United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d
In light of the agent’s testimony

suppression

hearing,

the

district

court

concluded that the agent exercised due diligence to determine
the current email address for Jha at his place of employment and
also to determine the particular address for Jha’s company.

We

find no clear error in the district court’s findings that there
was no intent to deceive or reckless disregard for the truth
with

respect

to

the

search

account or for the residence.

warrant

affidavit

for

the

email

See United States v. Allen, 631

F.3d 164, 171 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing standard).
Jha

also

challenges

the

district

court’s

denial

of

his

motion to suppress statements he made during the execution of
the search warrant at his home.

He contends that he was “in

custody” and therefore should have been given the Miranda v.
Arizona,

384

U.S.

436

(1966),

warnings

prior

to

being

interviewed by the agents.
The

district

circumstances,

court,

concluded

considering

that

Jha
4

was

the
not

totality
in

custody

of
at

the
the

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 5 of 7

time, see Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984), and
that

his

statements

admissible.
Viewing

were

voluntary

and

therefore

were

See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977).

the

evidence

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

Government, United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226, 233 (4th Cir.
2012), we agree with the district court’s determination that the
circumstances of Jha’s interview are distinguishable from those
in United States v. Hashime, 734 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 2013)
(finding

defendant

in

custody

in

home

during

search

warrant

after officers entered the home with great show of force, got
Hashime out of bed at gun point, led him downstairs and outside
in his boxer shorts, and then separated him from his family and
interviewed him for three hours in a small basement room), and
that

Jha

was

not

in

custody

at

the

time

of

the

interview.

Accordingly, the district court appropriately denied the motion
to suppress Jha’s statements.
Jha asserts that the district court erred by denying his
motion in limine by which he sought to exclude evidence of the
content

of

attended.

a

slide

presentation

shown

during

a

workshop

The district court’s decision as to the admissibility

of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
States v.
challenged

he

Cole,

631

evidence

F.3d
was

146,

relevant

153
to

(4th
Jha’s

Cir.

2011).

knowledge

qualifications for the grant for which he had applied.
5

United
The
of

the

Because

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 6 of 7

Jha was charged with misrepresenting his qualifications in an
application

for

grant

money

submitted

after

the

date

of

the

presentation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
ruling that this evidence was admissible.
Next,

Jha

challenges

the

14-level

enhancement

to

his

offense level based on the district court’s determination that
the amount of loss attributed to his crimes exceeded $400,000.
The

Government

intended

loss

asserted
was

that

$500,000;

actual

Jha

loss

disputes

was
that

$200,000
there

and

was

any

actual loss.
The amount of loss for sentencing purposes “is the greater
of actual loss or intended loss.”

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2B1.1(b)(1), cmt. n.3(A) (2013).
actual

loss

appropriately

amount,

we

determined

conclude
that

the

that

Notwithstanding the
the

intended

district
loss

from

court
Jha’s

scheme was $500,000 based on Jha’s conduct in having drafted the
Phase II grant application seeking to secure a grant in the
amount

of

$500,000,

using

the

same

information

and

false

representations he used in the prior two grant applications.
Accordingly,
amount.

the

court

did

not

err

in

determining

the

loss

See United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 341

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2747 (2013).
Lastly, Jha challenges the restitution order imposed by the
district

court.

The

district
6

court’s

restitution

order

is

Appeal: 14-4717

Doc: 49

Filed: 06/04/2015

Pg: 7 of 7

reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Leftwich,

628 F.3d 665, 667 (4th Cir. 2010).

However, where, as here, the

defendant did not object to the amount of restitution ordered,
review is for plain error.

United States v. Seignious, 757 F.3d

155, 160 (4th Cir. 2014).
Jha argued that he provided technical research reports in
exchange

for

the

award

of

grant

money

and

therefore

the

Government did not sustain any loss as a result of his conduct.
However, as the district court determined, the grant money was
not paid to Jha in exchange for his research reports, but rather
to promote collaborative research between small businesses and
research facilities.

Also, as a result of Jha’s student stipend

scheme, research funds from the Department of Defense alloted
for research purposes were instead diverted to Jha’s personal
benefit.
much

less

We find that the district court did not commit error,
plain

error,

in

finding

that

Jha

defrauded

two

government agencies and in the determination of the amount of
restitution owed.

See Seignious, 757 F.3d at 162.

We affirm Jha’s conviction and sentence.
oral

We dispense with

argument

contentions

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

7