PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends and appellee does not question that this appeal from denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence for robbery should be treated as a direct appeal from the conviction, on the basis that notice of appeal was timely filed and subsequent delay was due to excusable neglect. We assume, without deciding, that this is correct. Cf. Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 266,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.