so reducing the sentence on count 17, the district court stated that this was done to give Leyvas credit for the time which he had spent in the county jail following the imposition of sentence.  The effect of the reduction was to make the entire term of imprisonment on count 17, three years and five months, which period was to run consecutively and not concurrently with the sentences previously imposed on counts 10 and 11.


5
More than six years later, on February 24, 1965, the United States, proceeding under Rule 35, filed a motion 'To Correct Illegal Sentence.'  Specifically, the Government asked the court to set aside the order of December 5, 1958, and to reinstate the originally-imposed five-year sentence on count 17.  The stated ground1965.  However, Leyvas was not personally notified of the hearing and was not present.  On April 19, 1965, the district court granted the Government's motion setting aside the order of December 5, 1958, which had reduced Leyvas' sentence, and reinstating the five-year sentence on count 17, as originally imposed on April 29, 1957.  Leyvas then filed his motion of July 6, 1965, to 'Correct and/or Modify Sentence.'  This motion was denied on the day it was filed, and this appeal followed.


8
Leyvas argues that the amendatory enactment of July 18, 1956, providing for a five-year mandatroy sentence for first offenders of 21 U.S.C. 174, did not prevent the district court from reducing the sentence imposed on count 17 below the five-year minimum period.  Leyvas