¶1*583Appellant filed a brief pro se, and his case was treated as submitted thereon.
¶2Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., was on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee.
¶3Before Washington, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.
¶5Appellant filed a motion in the District Court seeking “correction” of his sentence on the ground that the judgment as recorded and signed by the trial judge failed to conform with the judgment pronounced orally.1 The difference to which appellant alludes is the written judgment’s specification of the sequence in which appellant’s sentences should be served. The oral judgment merely declared that the two sentences should be served consecutively without specifying which sentence would be served first.
¶6The District Court properly treated appellant’s motion as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and correctly concluded that “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.” 2 United States v. Daugherty, 1926, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309. The denial of the motion without hearing therefore is
¶7Affirmed.