United States of America v. Srikanth Raghunathan; Padmashri Sampathkumar

BLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4800
___________
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 4 --

The docket does not reflect any Government response to Raghunathan’s motions, but1
the motions were nearly identical.
2
District of Pennsylvania, which denied their motions for plea hearing transcripts and
sentencing transcripts. 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 each pleaded guilty to Fraudulent Representation
in Connection with a Loan Application from a Federally Insured Financial Institution, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Judgments were entered against the two on May 14, 2007.
An Amended Judgment was entered against Sampathkumar on May 18, 2007, and a
Second Amended Judgment was entered against her on June 26, 2007. An Amended
Judgment was also entered against Raghunathan on June 26, 2007.
Near the end of November 2007, each filed motions for sentencing transcripts and
for plea hearing transcripts. The motions asked that the transcripts be prepared pursuant
to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and indicated that the movant did not
have necessary funds to purchase the transcripts. Each motion stated that the transcripts
would be necessary for the “evaluation of potential appeals issue affecting constitutional
rights of the petitioner.”
The Government responded to Sampathkumar’s motions, arguing that § 3006A1
does not require the Court or the Government to pay for transcripts when no proceedings
are pending in the district court or the court of appeals. The Government also noted that

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Sampathkumar had waived her right to appeal and to collaterally attack her conviction,
except in limited circumstances, which did not apply, and that Sampathkumar had not
filed a timely appeal or a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court then
denied Raghunathan’s and Sampathkumar’s motions, noting that they had “filed neither
an appeal nor a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”
The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, provides in part that “[a] person for
whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every stage of the proceedings from his
initial appearance . . . through appeal, including ancillary matters appropriate to the
proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). Counsel may also be appointed for a person
“seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28" if the court “ determines that
the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel who has been
appointed “for a person who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other
services necessary for adequate representation may request them in an ex parte
application.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1). Necessary transcripts are included within the
“services” authorized. United States v. Brown, 443 F.2d 659, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
Further, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides that the United States will pay a court reporter for
transcripts authorized by the Criminal Justice Act, and shall also pay for transcripts in
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 brought by persons proceeding in forma
pauperis, “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not
frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or

-- 3 of 4 --

Appellants’ motions for appointment of counsel are denied as moot.2
4
appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
Neither of these statutes authorize the United States to pay for a transcript where
no proceeding is pending. See Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278, 279 (5 Cir. 1970)th
(federal prisoner not entitled to obtain copies of court records at Government expense for
purpose of searching the record for possible error); Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d
397, 398-99 (5 Cir. 1964) (statutory right to proceed in forma pauperis does not includeth
right to obtain copies of transcripts, without payment therefor, for use in proposed or
prospective litigation). We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.2

-- 4 of 4 --