PER CURIAM.
Williams appeals from a robbery conviction on the ground that his confession was received in violation of the Mallory interpretation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. There was, according to his counsel, a delay of about 20 minutes in taking him before the nearest available commissioner, during which he confessed.
Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957).
The record does not show any objection to the admission of the oral confession on a Mallory point or on any other ground. Thus the point was not preserved for presentation on appeal and, under established procedure, it will not be noticed here. Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 290 F.2d 378 (1961).
Subsequent to the allowance of this appeal, Williams's counsel, realizing that in the absence of objection this court probably would not consider his argument as to inadmissibility, moved the District Court to correct or modify the record to make it show an objection to evidence of the oral confession based on coercion and a Mallory violation. This was under Rule 75(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Various affidavits as to this were presented to the trial judge. He denied the motion, correctly we think.
Affirmed.