Datta v. United States
- 1:14-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Datta v. United States, the court received Datta’s self-represented motion seeking clarification of the counts supporting his sentence and forfeiture orders.
Vikram Datta and the United States of America; the provided text does not show any court ruling affecting them.
What happened
In Datta v. United States, Vikram Datta, representing himself, asked the court to clarify which counts and indictment, and which case number, supported the imprisonment and forfeiture orders imposed on January 20, 2012.
Datta requested hard copies of those charging documents. He identified forfeiture amounts of $40,000,000 on Count One and $29,505,265 on Counts Two and Three, and said he did not know which counts or case number produced the orders.
The provided text ends during Datta’s supporting argument and does not state how the motion was resolved. The judge is not identified; the court’s action is therefore unclear.
The detailed version
- Datta v. United States · No. 1:14-cv-08653
- Oct. 5, 2021
Motion and request
Vikram Datta, identified as representing himself, filed a motion invoking 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). He asked the court to clarify and provide hard copies of the counts or indictment, along with the case number, under which imprisonment and forfeiture orders were imposed at his January 20, 2012 sentencing.
Background stated in the motion
Datta said he did not know which counts or indictments, or which of the listed case numbers, supported the orders. He identified forfeiture amounts of $40,000,000 in Count One and $29,505,265 in Counts Two and Three. The filing lists these case numbers: 1:11-MJ-108, 1:11-CR-0102, 1:11-CR-0102-1 (LAK), 14-cv-8653 (LAK), and 1:20-cv-02330-LAK.
Court action
The supplied opinion text ends during Datta’s preliminary statement, where he asks that his self-represented filings be read liberally. It does not include a judicial analysis, ruling, or disposition. The judge’s name is not supplied, so the court’s action cannot be determined from this text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.