PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends and appellee does not question that this appeal from denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence for robbery should be treated as a direct appeal from the conviction, on the basis that notice of appeal was timely filed and subsequent delay was due to excusable neglect. We assume, without deciding, that this is correct. Cf. Blunt v. United States, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 266, 244 F.2d 355; Ramsour v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 57. We find no error affecting substantial rights.
Affirmed.