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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 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 conceming 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, languagé barrier, wrong interoperation's, lack of understanding, prejustice from FBI, prejustice from attorneys, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial prosecution and perjured testimony alang 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 ane. A pro se petitioner ts held to a less exacting standard than an attorney; in drafting petition. Ms. Modugumudi also doesn't even get that benefit because of her educational level and language barrier. By the court denying Ms. Modugumudi counsel she has had a lot more suffering and prejustice to present an appropriate appeal. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F, 2d 1147(4th Cir 1978). soceicie this court ahould ely interpret Medugurudis fact allegations and legal contentions for her appeal as generously orth out the professional esis re pret 8 ion on er appeal anda wigh language barrier that could never be overcame overcome. preter and proper legal guidance, Modugumudi has the highest barrier to Although a convicted defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on accurate information, to succeed on attacking a . sentence that defendant must show that inaccurate information was before the court and that the court relied upon it. curt Sonft's leer fom wien an oe order at rene Pee ace om te begining. Asa ru, where the ; and ; y re Is an inconsistency exists between an unambiguous sentence, Modugumudi has more than a conflict of oral and written at sentencing as she didn't even have the proper understanding and interpretations f