U.S. v. Cates

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying motion by defendant’s counsel for extension of time to consider filing post-conviction motions, where counsel’s motion was filed five months after deadline for filing post-conviction motions under Rules 29 and 33, and two months after counsel had been appointed to represent defendant. Counsel failed to demonstrate that “excusable neglect” caused instant late filing where counsel merely asserted that he spent “extended amount of time” in reviewing file and speaking to witnesses. Moreover, counsel failed to explain why it took two months to file instant motion that merely requested more time to consider filing any post-conviction motion and did not suggest any specific grounds for possible post-conviction motions.