David Earl Johnson is no stranger to Federal Court. In January of 1971, Johnson was tried and convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), assault with a dangerous weapon during a bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d), and carrying a firearm unlawfully during the commission of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(2). He was sentenced to three concurrent prison terms of 20 years, 20 years, and 2 years respectively. He did not take a direct appeal from the convictions. However, within the prescribed ten day period, he moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion was denied but Johnson was not notified because he had escaped from custody.
About three years later, Johnson began making a series of pro se collateral attacks, including a number of appeals to this Court.1 In this — his fourth — appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Johnson contends that: (1) his convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, (2) the District Court erred in refusing to consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) he was denied his right to appeal because the District Court and his court-appointed counsel did not advise him of his appeal rights, (4) he was improperly sentenced.
We hold that Johnson was improperly sentenced and remand to the District Court for resentencing. We do not reach Johnson’s other claims, but since we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing, Johnson’s right to take a direct appeal is in effect reinstated and he may again raise his challenges to the convictions.
As stated, Johnson was convicted and received concurrent sentences for violating three separate statutory provisions: 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a),2 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d),3 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(2).4 A *368host of cases make clear that this sentencing scheme is improper. In Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978), the Supreme Court held that in a prosecution arising out of a single transaction of bank robbery with a firearm, a defendant may not be sentenced under both § 2113(d) and § 924(c). This rule applies even when the sentences are concurrent. United States v. Nelson, 574 F.2d 277, 281 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 956, 99 S.Ct. 355, 58 L.Ed.2d 347 (1978). The Government concedes that Simpson and its progeny are controlling,5 and that Johnson’s concurrent two year sentence under § 924(c)(2) cannot stand. Cf. Busic v. United States, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 1747, 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980).
Similarly, under the authority of such cases as Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370 (1956); Eakes v. United States, 391 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1968); and Holland v. United States, 384 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1970), Johnson cannot be lawfully sentenced under both § 2113(a) and § 2113(d). And this is so even if the sentences are concurrent rather than consecutive. Holland, supra, 384 F.2d at 371; Rose v. United States, 448 F.2d 389, 390 (5th Cir. 1971). The Government concedes that under these cases, Johnson may have his § 2113(a) sentence vacated. It follows that Johnson may only be sentenced on his § 2113(d) conviction.
Although neither side requests a remand,6 we believe that a remand for re-sentencing is essential and do so under the exercise of our supervisory powers (see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106). To begin with, we cannot be sure that had the District Court applied the correct law regarding bank robbery convictions Johnson would have been sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. The District Court was under the erroneous view that Johnson could be sentenced consecutively on all three statutory provisions, for a total of 55 years.7 Actually, the maximum which the Judge could have imposed is only 25 years.8 Perhaps, after realizing that the maximum sentence is only 25 years, the District Court may conclude that a 20 year sentence is too harsh. The District Court should at least be able to reconsider the matter.
This course of action ensures that the rights of Johnson are adequately protected. Johnson alleges — and it may well be the case — that he was denied his right to direct appeal because of the failure of the District Court and Johnson’s court-appointed attor*369ney to inform him of this right. At the resentencing, like the sentencing, Johnson will be constitutionally entitled to be present and represented by counsel, court-appointed if he has no retained counsel. See Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967); United States v. Huff, 512 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1975). Since it is the duty of the District Court and defendant’s attorney to advise the defendant of his right to appeal after the sentence is imposed, United States v. Smith, 387 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1967); F.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2), the resentencing will ensure that Johnson is so advised, and his contention that he was not advised of his right to appeal last time around will become irrelevant. And because this Court is vacating the sentences9 and remanding the case to the District Court, Johnson’s right to direct appeal will be preserved. United States v. Smith, supra, 387 F.2d at 271; Williams v. United States, 402 F.2d 548, 552 (8th Cir. 1968). Cf. Miller v. United States, 356 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 912, 86 S.Ct. 1357,16 L.Ed.2d 365 (1966); Boruff v. United States, 310 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1962). Thus, for example, Johnson may raise his Double Jeopardy10 challenges to two of the three convictions.11
We are confident that on remand, the District Court will fairly resentence Johnson and ensure that his rights are protected. Since, by vacating Johnson’s sentences, we in effect renew his right to direct appeal, we doubt that we have seen the last of him in this Court.
VACATED and REMANDED.