Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Oct. 5, 2021

Datta v. United States

Docket
1:20-cv-02330
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
CriminalCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Datta v. United States, the court’s excerpt presents Vikram Datta’s request to identify counts tied to his 2012 sentence and forfeiture orders.

Who this affects

Vikram Datta, who filed the request, and the United States, identified as the respondent.

What happened

In Datta v. United States, Vikram Datta filed a request under Section 552(a) of Title 5 of the United States Code. He asked for a paper copy of the counts or indictment and the case number connected to his January 20, 2012, imprisonment and forfeiture orders.

Datta said he did not know which counts or indictments supported the orders. He identified forfeiture amounts of $40,000,000 for Count One and $29,505,265 for Counts Two and Three. He also stated that he was representing himself.

The excerpt does not show a ruling on the request. The court’s individual judge is not identified in the provided text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Datta v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-02330
Date
Oct. 5, 2021

Request

Vikram Datta, representing himself, filed a motion under Section 552(a) of Title 5 of the United States Code. The motion asks the court to clarify which counts or indictment, and which listed case number, led to the imprisonment and forfeiture orders imposed at his sentencing on January 20, 2012. Datta also requested a paper copy of those counts or the indictment.

Amounts Identified

Datta stated that he did not know which counts or indictments supported the orders. He identified a forfeiture order of $40,000,000 in Count One and forfeiture orders totaling $29,505,265 in Counts Two and Three.

Court Action

The provided excerpt ends during Datta’s preliminary statement and does not contain the court’s reasoning or disposition of the motion. It therefore does not show whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.