US v. Manoj Jha

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to impose sanctions [999952594-2]; denying Motion to vacate [999914962-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999973224].. [16-6856]

Appeal: 16-6856

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6856

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:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manoj Kumar Jha, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6856

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Manoj Kumar Jha appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a new trial and denying his motion for
reconsideration of the order granting the Government an extension
of time to file a response.

We have reviewed the record and find

no abuse of discretion by the district court and no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

United States v. Jha, No. 1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1 (D.

Md. June 13, 2016).

We deny Jha’s motion for sanctions and his

motion to vacate this court’s decision in United States v. Jha,
613 F. App’x 212 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4717).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2