Datta v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:14-cv-08653
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\R@R)THEDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOK { UMENT □□□ ELECTRONICALLY are □ DOC #: tet □□ I DATE FILED:2- □□ VIKRAM DATTA pee MEMO ENDORSED

V. CASE#s: 11-cr-0102; 11-cr-0578 (VM/LAK); 11-CR-0102(LAK);

11-cr-0102-LAK-1; 1:09-CR-949-02 (LAK), 14-cv-8653-LAK & 14-cv-8653 □□□□ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION & INFORMATION FOR THE MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSE FOR CONVICTION OF FELONIES

VIKRAM DATTA, prose USM # 64542054 7512 Delfina Drive Laredo, TX. 78041

Memorandum Endorsement United States v. Datta, 11-cr-0102 (LAK), 14-cv-8653 (LAK) et ano. There is no proper legal or factual basis for this frivolous motion as has been true of several other previous applications. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) provides in relevant part: “By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an . . . unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: x * “(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; “(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”. (Emphasis added) Rule 11(c)(1) further provides in relevant part that “[iJf, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any . . . party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” (Emphasis added) And it is well established that “Rule 11... appl[ies] to anyone who signs a pleading, motion or other paper.’ [citations omitted] Status as a pro se litigant may be taken into account, but sanctions can be imposed for any suit that is frivolous.” Vukadinovich v. McCarthy, 901 F.2d 1439, 1445 (1990) (emphasis supplied). The defendant should consider this order fair warning that any further filings in violation of Rule 11(b) may result in the imposition of substantial sanctions. Defendant’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the defendant and note the mailing on the docket sheet. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2025 ly, fy Lewis A. Kapfan United States Distfict Judge