United States v. John Cortez White, No. 71-1687 Summary Calendar. (1) Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409

447 F.2d 493 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Cortez WHITE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1687 Summary Calendar.* *(1) Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Sept. 1, 1971. Irving Silver, Feibelman & Silver, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant. C. S. White-Spunner, Jr., U.S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee. Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: — 1 — Appellant was convicted of (1) robbing a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2113(a), and (2) assaulting and putting in jeopardy the lives of persons by use of a dangerous weapon while committing the bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2113(d). He was sentenced to twenty years under the (a) count and to twenty-five years under the (d) count, to run concurrently. On and remanded for the District Court to appeal, we vacated the two sentences enter a single sentence. United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 436 F.2d 1380. — 2 — On remand, appellant was resentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment on the conviction under 2113(d). The sentence on the conviction under 2113(a) was vacated. See Eakes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 287. The present appeal is from the judgment resentencing appellant. — 3 — ( 2) Appellant argues that the district court committed error in failing to require a new jury trial, rather than merely resentencing him as stated. This contention is without merit. In fact, it was specifically rejected in United States v. White, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 978. — 4 — Appellant also urges that his sentence was too harsh and that we should modify it. In Zaffarano v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 383 F.2d 719, 721, we said: — 5 — 'This Court is without power to modify a sentence which was legally imposed and within the bounds prescribed by statute.' — 6 — Thus this contention is also without merit. — 7 — Affirmed.