Whether appointed counsel's misconduct can serve as excusable neglect for an indigent federal criminal defendant's late filing of a dispositive motion

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented, on which the federal appellate courts are currently divided, is whether appointed counsel’s misconduct can serve as excusable neglect for an indigent federal criminal defendant’s late filing of a dispositive motion. In Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), this Court outlined factors for assessing whether a filing deadline may be extended for excusable neglect pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b). Petitioner seeks to resolve the significant problems caused by the varying applications of the Pioneer factors to indigent federal criminal defendants who face procedural hurdles caused by their appointed counsel’s ineffectiveness. i