The appellant was convicted of burglary and appeals. The only contention deserving our consideration is that he was convicted on perjured testimony. Since he has not charged that any false testimony was known to be such by anyone in the case acting upon behalf of the Government of the Canal Zone, the contention cannot prevail. See Sears v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 301. The judgment is

Affirmed.