¶1Sidney A. Mauney, in pro. per.
¶2John L. Bowers, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert E. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on brief for appellee.
¶3Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and CELEBREZZE and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
¶5This is an appeal from an order dismissing Mauney’s petition to vacate sentence. We affirm.
¶6In 1970 Mauney was convicted in the United States District Court for interstate transportation of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. He was sentenced to a three year term of imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. (No. 20,705, 6th Cir., March 25, 1971, unpublished.)
¶7In June 1971 Mauney filed the instant action, asserting that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
¶8Mauney asserts that he should have been sentenced under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a).1 The Government contends that he was indicted, tried, and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)2 and was properly sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a),3
¶9 The record shows that Mauney was tried and convicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The sentence was within the maximum provided by 18 U. S.C. § 924(a). Where two statutes proscribe identical conduct, the Government may elect to prosecute under the statute providing the more severe penalty. See Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, 134-135, 76 S.Ct. 685, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956).
¶10Affirmed.