PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a writ in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The court below had jurisdiction under the All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. United States v. Morgan, 1954, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248.
Appellant was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for armed bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (18 U.S.C. § 2113). Before starting to serve sentence, he was thereafter convicted of the same offense, armed bank robbery, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. He was sentenced to serve five consecutive years.
He then stated he would like to move for a new trial. His attorney asked to be relieved. The trial judge said:
"Let the record show the court will appoint somebody else for any further proceedings the defendants desire to take." (Tr. p. 8; emphasis added.)
The defendant Tucker then asked that his sentencing be continued. The court refused the requested continuance, and the defendant stated:
"I will withdraw my motion for a new trial at this time, then, and at a later time I will try to submit my evidence in the form of new evidence."
Defendant Tucker did nothing with respect to his conviction in Southern California, although he appealed his conviction in the Northern California matter. All the foregoing occurred in August 1953.
Appellant was granted a full hearing in the district court on this petition. Thereafter one of the most experienced trial judges in our federal court system made and filed the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order thereon:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"1) Defendant and Richard Bernard Bellew were charged in a one count indictment returned April 8, 1953, with the violation of the armed bank robbery statute: 18 U. S.C. § 2113(d).
"2) A jury verdict of guilty was returned against Tucker and Bellew on July 23, 1953.
"3) Tucker was sentenced on August 3, 1953, to serve five years in the custody of the Attorney General following the termination of the twenty-five year term imposed upon him for another bank robbery in the Southern Division of the Northern District of California in Case No. 33561. Bellew was given fifteen years.
"4) After the imposition of sentence, Tucker orally moved the Court, the Honorable Dave W. Ling, United States District Judge presiding, to grant him a new trial. Tucker\'s Court-appointed attorney, Hugh R. Gallahger, Esq., and Bellew\'s Court-appointed attorney, Richard L. Sullivan, Esq., interjected their requests to be relieved from further service in the case. Judge Ling granted their motions and instructed the Clerk to indicate in his minutes that the Court would appoint other counsel `for any further proceedings the defendants desire to take.\'
"5) Tucker withdrew his oral motion for a new trial immediately thereafter at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing on August 3, 1953, and stated: `(A)t a later time I will try to submit my evidence in the form of new evidence.\'
"6) No notice of appeal was filed by either defendant within the tenday period prescribed by Rule 37(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.; however, 72 days after the imposition of their sentences, on October 14, 1953, motions were filed in this Court by both defendants requesting extensions of time within which to file notices of appeal.
"7) These motions were denied by this Court in an order filed on October 29, 1953. Tucker and Bellew\'s motions for a rehearing thereon filed November 6, 1953, were denied by this Court in an order filed January 25, 1954. On May 21, 1954, the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying both defendants their request to appeal from the denial of their motions for extensions of time in which to file notices of appeal from their judgments of conviction was filed in this Court.
"8) Thereafter Tucker initiated several different proceedings in this Court and in the Court of Appeals, attacking the judgment of August 3, 1953. These included a motion pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, filed in this Court on May 27, 1954, and a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 2255. Relief was denied in each case.
"9) On November 2, 1954, Tucker filed his first motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis in which he alleged that an understanding had been reached between him and Assistant United States Attorney Manuel L. Real that he would not offer an alibi defense at trial in return for which the Government would seek leniency from the Court for him; furthermore, he alleged therein that his Court-appointed attorney, Hugh R. Gallagher, Esq., had a conflict of interest since one of his private clients was an important prosecution witness.
"10) After a hearing on the aforesaid charges, the Honorable William C. Mathes, United States District Judge, filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 11, 1957, denying relief to Tucker, and finding among other things that: `Attorney Hugh Gallagher never knew or represented John Hancock * * * in any proceedings or matters whatsoever, either civil or criminal * * *\' and that `Attorney Manual L. Real did not at any time make any agreement, representation or promise to or with the petitioner, or to any other person; that the Government was not interested in prosecuting or convicting the petitioner; or that the Government would move for a Judgment of Acquittal or Dismissal against said petitioner in connection with said case; or, in the event of a conviction against the petitioner, that the Government would request or recommend to the United States District Court the imposition of a concurrent sentence to the above-mentioned term of twenty-five years imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; this Court further finds that Attorney Manual L. Real never requested the petitioner to refrain from calling any witnesses whatsoever in his own behalf at the time of the above trial in return for such a motion for a Judgment of Acquittal or Dismissal or a request or recommendation by the Government for a concurrent sentence in the event of conviction, or for any reason whatsoever * *\'
"11) The instant motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed by Tucker on
...
