Thе government seeks to mandamus the district judge, to set aside an alleged illegal sentеnce imposed on Robert Leo Corcoran, and to sentence the defendant in accordance with law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 1, 1968, Corcoran was convicted in a jury trial оf violation of 21 U;S.C. § 176a in connection with the transportation and concealment of approximately 150 pounds of marihuana, with full knowledge that it had been imported into the United States contrary to law. On March 26th, the court found that defendant was 21 years of age on the date of conviction and sentenced him to the custody of The Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b), until discharged by the Federal Youth Corrections Division of thе Board of Parole as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 5017(c). Corcoran’s conviction was affirmеd by a panel of this court. Corcoran v. United States,
Aftеr the government’s motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 35 was denied, this proceeding was commenced. The defendant was at liberty on bail during thе course of the appeal and until resentencing, with the excep *406 tion of a two month period of confinement at Lompoc.
ISSUE
The prinсipal issue presented is the legality of the suspension of sentence and the placing of the defendant on probation.
At the time of the original and of the impоsition of the new sentence, the court was required to impose a sentence of “ * * * not less than five * * * years * * *
»
on a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. The suspension of the impositiоn or the execution of a sentence was prohibited on conviction for violation of certain narcotic offenses by 26 U.S.C. § 7237(d). This prohibition applies to violаtions of both 21 U.S.C. § 176a and § 174. Munich v. United States,
Thе lower court specifically mentioned 18 U.S.C. § 3651 in connection with the suspension of sentence and granting of probation. True enough, § 3651 was amended in 1958, but that amendment did not, аs argued by respondent, modify or repeal by implication § 7237(d), prohibiting the suspension оf sentences and the granting of probation in certain narcotic offenses. Unitеd States v. Toy,
The Controlled Substances Act, 1 Pub. L„ No. 91-513 § 1101(a) (2), (b) (4) (A), 84 Stat. 1236, although passed by the Congress in October, 1970, repealing the relevant statutes, did not become effective until May 1, 1971, 2 and is of no help to respondent on this appeal.
While we fully understand the deep concern and compassionate interest of the trial judge in the welfare of those who come before him for sentencing and have no reason to doubt that Corcoran was well on his way to complete rehabilitation, the judge’s sеntencing authority was confined to that permitted by the cited statutes. Here, we hold thаt there was no unreasonable or unjustifiable delay such as was recognized in United States v. Carter,
CONCLUSION
This opinion shall serve as a writ of mandamus requiring respondent to vacatе and set aside the illegal amended judgment and commitment made and entered on Fеbruary 10, 1971, in United States of America v. Robert Leo Cor-coran, Criminal Case No. 1371, in the United States District Court, Central District of California.
We express no opinion on the nature of the sentence which may be imposed on the resentencing. Initially, we leave to the district judge the question of whether he can now sentence under the legislation which became effective on May 1, 1971.
Writ granted.