Court Opinion

ID: 9691699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:59:58.73868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:25.571872
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Chief Judge
(dissenting) :
Appellant was here before, appealing from the same convictions, and after his brief on the merits had been filed, the Government moved to dismiss because the appeals had not been timely noted. This court, with one judge dissenting, granted the motion to dismiss. From the action of this court, appellant petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for the allowance of an appeal. That court, with one judge dissenting, denied the petition. Appellant’s able counsel then moved the trial court to vacate the sentences. When that motion was denied, these appeals were taken. The majority opinion now holds that the sentences should be vacated and appellant re-sentenced, presumably in order that he may then file timely notices of' appeal. I cannot agree.
*830The whole question of the neglect of appellant’s counsel to file timely notices of appeal was presented to this court in opposition to the motion to dismiss the former appeals and was fully considered. If the majority opinion is correct, we should not have dismissed the first appeals, but we did dismiss them and I believe we should not now permit that to be done indirectly which we refused to permit to be done directly. Under today’s ruling three appeals are necessary to accomplish what should have required only one appeal.