Crumpton

Crumpton v. United States

Good Law
496 F. Supp. 774·1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13243
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 29, 198079-2545, CV 78-3074 WMB and CR 75-1058 WMBCalifornia2,231 words

Opinion

Opinion

Byrne, J.

AMENDED DETERMINATIONS ON REMAND

On July 10, 1980, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded petitioner’s appeal of the denial of his motion for relief under Section 2255, Title 28, United States Code, to this Court for thirty-five days “for the limited purpose of allowing [this] court to determine whether appellant’s filing of a late notice of appeal . . . was due to excusable neglect.” Appeals in proceedings to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , like habeas corpus appeals are governed by Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the rule governing the time for appeal in civil cases, even though the proceedings relate directly to a prior criminal case, are initiated by motion, and are filed and docketed in the district court in the original criminal case. Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2255 (Supp.1980); United States v. McKnight, 593 F.2d 230 , 231 n.3 (3d Cir. 1979) ; Rothman v. United States, 508 F.2d 648, 651 (3d Cir. 1975); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.08[1], at 4-30 to 4-31 (2d ed. 1980) (hereafter “Moore’s"). See also Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.