U.S. v. Rollins

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion for new trial on drug distribution charge where ruling was based on Dist. Ct.'s conclusion that facts contained in defendant's motion were not newly discovered. Defendant's motion should have been treated as habeas petition under section 2255 where defendant asserted that his indictment was procured irregularly, that prosecutor withheld certain information during discovery, and that his counsel was ineffective. As such, Dist. Ct. should have addressed merits of defendant's arguments since claims under section 2255 do not depend on evidence being newly discovered. Moreover, defendant's appeal was timely since it was filed within 10 days of denial of his motion for reconsideration.