Orville Steptoe v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Orville Steptoe v. United States

280 F.2d 641, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4059

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 7, 1960·No. 15436·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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, 244 F.2d 355; Ramsour v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. -, 280 F.2d 57. We find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, 244 F.2d 355; Ramsour v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. -, 280 F.2d 57. We find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

Orville Steptoe v. United States, 280 F.2d 641, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4059 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

280 F.2d 641 (Orville Steptoe v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related