United States of America v. Srikanth Raghunathan; Padmashri Sampathkumar

BLD-241 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1941
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SRIKANTH RAGHUNATHAN;
PADMASHRI SAMPATHKUMAR
Appellants
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 06-CR-00240)
District Judge: Honorable David Stewart Cercone
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 26, 2008
Before: McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 1, 2008)
_________
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

-- 1 of 2 --

That order also authorized the couple to proceed IFP in this appeal.1
2
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.
Rahunathan 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 Rahunathan 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 denied1
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).

-- 2 of 2 --