Whether the district court may find excusable neglect based solely on the length of time elapsed between judgment and filing, when most circuits require consideration of all Pioneer factors and some place more emphasis on the reason for the delay

QUESTION PRESENTED This petition is concerned with the denial of a new trial motion under Rule 33(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, filed well after the rule’s 14-day deadline, which raised questions of the defendant’s competency to rationally assist counsel in his defense at the trial. The question is: May the district court find excusable neglect on the part of several counsel over the course of the litigation, applying the four-factor test set out in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), based on just one Pioneer factor — the length of time that has elapsed between judgment and the filing — when most circuits require consideration of all the factors, and some circuits place more emphasis on a different Pioneer factor, the litigant’s and his counsel’s reason for the delay, but none have found that length of time alone is a basis for finding non-excusable neglect?