Petitioner is imprisoned pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the District Court for the Western District of Washington. He was charged and convicted on four counts of an indictment alleging violation of the narcotics laws and also pleaded guilty to a charge of two previous violations. Petitioner appeals from a dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 . He alleges that the judgment pronounced from the bench ordered the sentences to run concurrently so that the maximum time he was to serve was ten years, and that he has now served ten years but is being held on the mistaken theory that two of the ten year sentences were to run consecutively.

Petitioner’s contention is that a variance exists between the oral judgment pronounced from the bench and the written judgment subsequently filed and that under such circumstances the judgment orally pronounced should control.

We quote in part from a transcript of the proceeding had at the time of the pronouncement of judgment:

The oral statements by the court from the bench that the corrected written judgment conformed to the judgment theretofore pronounced, read in their appropriate '• context, constituted an oral pronouncement that the sentence on combined counts one and three and on combined counts two and four were to run consecutively.

Affirmed.

. This cumulation of two of the fines at least inferentially supports the theory of intended consecutiveness of two of the prison sentences. . The language being referred to reads as follows, with the underlined portions indicating the handwriting of Judge Boldt: “ * * * for the period of Ten (10) years on Count I of the Indictment, for the period of Ten (10) years on Count II of the Indictment, for the period of Ten (10) years on Count III of the Indictment, and for the period of Ten (10) years on Count IV of the Indictment, the execution of the sentence on Count II shall be Consecutive to and not Concurrent with, the execution of the sentence on Count I, and the execution of the sentences on Counts III and IV shall be Concurrent with, and not Consecutive to, the execution of the sentences imposed on Counts I and II.”