PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the motion of appellant to vacate sentence, the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that appellant was found guilty of mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 338a(a), now § 876, and duly sentenced in accordance with the statute;
And it appearing that appellant has previously filed a motion under § 2255, 28 U.S.C. which was denied by the District Court, the denial of the motion being affirmed by this court, Whiting v. United States, 6 Cir., 181 F.2d 643, certiorari denied, 341 U.S. 905, 71 S.Ct. 607, 95 L. Ed. 1344;
And it appearing that the motion from the denial of which this appeal is prosecuted was likewise filed under § 2255, 28 U.S.C. and is an attempt to reopen the proceedings in the trial court as if on appeal, which under the applicable decisions cannot be done, Davilman v. United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 284; Hudspeth v. United States, 6 Cir., 183 F.2d 68, 69; Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194;
It is ordered that the order of the District Court overruling appellant's motion and petition be, and it hereby is, affirmed.