Relief under appeal, the jurisdiction is ready for appeal as she applied for appeal within 14 days of sentencing she was sentenced on 06-24-2022. It is concerning that this court has not granted an attorney for Ms. Modugumudi as she does not speak or write English and her native language is Telugu. She has many reasons for an appeal and believes the appeal should be granted and her indictment remanded completely. Relief under appeal "is reserved for extraordinary situation," Previtt v. United States, 83 F 3d, 812, 816 (7th Cir 1996), involving "errors of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, or where the error represents a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriages' of justice." Modugumudi petitions and reasons for appeal are "neither a recapitulation or nor a substitute for a direct appeal." McCleese v. United States, 75 F. 3d - 1174, 1177 (7th Cir 1996) Coleman v. United States 318 F 754, 760(7th Cir 2003). In addition, the vindictive prosecution, no counsel, language barrier, wrong interoperation's, lack of understanding, prejustice from FBI, prejustice from attorneys, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial prosecution and perjured testimony along with constitutional violations.

Modugumudi 1 st amendment was violated she had no freedom of speech, or access to the courts to speak the truth and was forced into a horrendous plea deal. The 6th Constitutional amendment right was also violated with prohibits self incrimination, deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, also provides far trial. The last Constitutional amendment violate for Me. Modugumudi is her 6th amendment, provides adequate notice of accusation, assistance of counsel,' provides process for obtaining witnesses and confronting adverse witnesses. Ferrera v. United States, 456 F. 3d 278(1st Cir 2006) (affirming district courts grant on section of appeal relief on grounds that government violated due process by failing to research and disclose information, where absent prosecutorial misconduct, movant would have not plead guilty.) Not only did Modugumudi not have proper translation to sign her plea deal but she also didn't have'the benefit of full understanding of what she was signing, she was told one thing by her attorneys and the District Court sentenced her to Judgement and commitment of another thing. This is a direct violation of due process. She would have taken her case to trial to let the truth prevail, by incarcerating her and having her sign a plea deal without full understanding is a direct violation of the law, and reason to grant her appeal, however we will come across more reason, as this is not written'by an attorney as the court will not provide one.

Whether the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to lack of counsel, language barrier, prosecutorial misconduct, and other errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice