¶1*810Booker T. Vaughn, in pro. per.
¶2Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Lawrence Jay Weiner, Gerald M. Werksman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, 111., for appellee.
¶3Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and ENOCH, Circuit Judges.
¶5On February 11, 1964, petitioner-appellant, Booker T. Vaughn, after a prior court trial and findings of guilty of violations of the narcotics laws of the
¶6United States, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174,1 was sentenced by the district court to imprisonment for a term of eight years. The court stated that insofar as 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2),2 which allows the sentencing court to fix a prisoner’s eligibility for parole at time of sentencing, was applicable, it was to be applied in the service of the sentence.
¶718 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2), however, was not intended to apply to any offense for which there is provided a mandatory penalty.3 Sentencing under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 is mandatory.4
¶8On April 10, 1964, following a motion by Vaughn’s attorney under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., the district court reconsidered and amended the sentence to six years imprisonment.
¶9Vaughn was not before the court at the time of amendment of his sentence. On August 5, 1965, he filed a petition under Rule 35 for correction and reduction of sentence, complaining that contrary to the court’s statements in the original sentencing, he was not eligible for parole.
¶10*811On October 5, 1965, Vaughn was brought before the sentencing court on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum so that the terms of his sentence could be made clear to him. The six year sentence given on April 10, 1964 was confirmed at that time. Vaughn appeals from the order confirming his six year sentence.
¶11In his appeal, Vaughn takes the position that the district court’s amendment and correction of his sentence in no way affected the original sentence, insofar as it concerned his eligibility for parole under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). He argues that when the court reduced his sentence on April 10, 1964, it did not take into consideration its error in the application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2). Vaughn concludes from this that the original sentence was illegal, that it could not be corrected by a simple reduction, and therefore that the sentence is null and void. Consequently, he requests vacation of the sentence and resentenc-ing.
¶12Rule 35, supra, provides in part: “The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.”
¶13It appears from the record that a correct sentence, without mention of possible parole or of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2) was entered on April 10, 1964. This sentence was confirmed on October 5, 1965, with full understanding that 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a) (2) was not applicable. Vaughn was personally present in court at that time. Since the court could correct the illegal sentence at any time, the court’s simple reduction of sentence, without provision for parole, was sufficient to remove the defect in the original sentence.
¶14In this appeal, Vaughn was proceeding pro se. Accordingly, we ordered the cause submitted on the record and briefs of the respective parties, without oral argument.
¶15The order appealed from is affirmed.
¶16Affirmed.