¶1See 80 S.Ct. 113.
¶2*178Stanley Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
¶3J. Leonard Walker, and Robert D. Simmons, Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
¶4Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, McAL-LISTER, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, District Judge.
¶6Appellant filed his motion, under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate the sentence imposed on him by the District Court on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense of kidnaping for which he was tried, and that he was also insane at the time of his trial. Appellant had never been adjudicated insane prior to the imposition of the sentence. The issue of insanity was raised for the first time upon the motion to vacate, in the District Court. See Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835. The District Court held that the procedure that should be followed in this case was that provided in Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245.1 The court stated that appellant should apply to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a determination by the board of examiners of the issue of his mental competency at the time of his trial; that if there were probable cause to believe that appellant was mentally incompetent, the board of examiners would so report, and the court would hold a hearing; and that if the appellant was found to be mentally incompetent, the judgment of conviction would be vacated and a new trial granted.
¶7The court, therefore, denied appellant's motion filed under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, without prejudice to appellant to renew his motion thereunder, if the procedure under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245, failed to provide an adequate remedy for ascertaining the mental condition of appellant at the time of his trial. After denial of the motion, appellant was ex*179amined by the Psychiatric Board at the hospital of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, which reported that it was of the opinion that while appellant had a sociapathic personality, there was no evidence of psychosis, and that, in the opinion of the Board, he was mentally competent at the time of his trial and sentence.
¶8Under the circumstances of this case, the order of the District Court is affirmed, without prejudice, however, to the right of appellant to renew his motion, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Meadows, D.C., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312; Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 858, 78 S.Ct. 88, 2 L.Ed.2d 65. See also Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 48.