Legal Opinion
Crumpton v. United States
District Court, C.D. California
Decided August 29, 1980No. 79-2545, CV 78-3074 WMB and CR 75-1058 WMBPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED DETERMINATIONS ON REMAND
WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge.
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.” 1 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…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Estate Butler's Tire & Battery Co., Inc. v. Ferrous Financial ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Jacqueline Selph v. Council of the City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Sam Rabin v. Henry Cohen, B & H Processing Co., and Peterson Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Laurence John LaytonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Berndt v. StinsonDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1982
- United States v. ChaneyDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1983