(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-5206
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MONDEE STRACENER,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 85-CR-51(2)
- - - - - - - - - -
August 17, 1993
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mondee Stracener challenges the district court's denial of
his motion to reduce sentence brought under Fed. R. Crim. P.
35(b). The denial of a Rule 35 motion is reviewed for illegality
or abuse of discretion. United States v. Kirkland, 853 F.2d
1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1988). Stracener does not contest the
legality of his sentence, but argues that he received a more
severe sentence upon resentencing because he received a higher
percentage of the maximum possible sentence.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 92-5206
-2-
The maximum sentence he could have received as a result of
his original conviction for aiding and abetting armed bank
robbery was 25 years. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). He received a 20-
year term of incarceration, which was 80 percent of the maximum.
Upon resentencing, the maximum sentence he could have received,
and actually did receive, for his aiding and abetting simple bank
robbery conviction, was 20 years; 100 percent of the maximum. 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Stracener was not sentenced based upon a percentage of the
maximum possible sentence. Instead, he was sentenced to a finite
period. That period did not increase upon resentencing, and the
duration of his sentence remained unchanged. The district
court's denial of his Rule 35(b) motion was not an abuse of
discretion, and its order is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --