U.S. v. Medina-Mora

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion under Rule 36 to correct clerical error in written judgment that did not specify that defendant’s 77-month term of incarceration on charge of illegal reentry into U.S. was to be served concurrently with undischarged sentences on state convictions, as Dist. Ct. had orally stated during sentencing hearing. While Dist. Ct., in denying motion, observed that he meant to apply defendant’s sentence consecutively to defendant’s state convictions, Dist. Ct. lacked authority to deny instant motion where Dist. Ct.’s attempt to correct oral sentence came more than 14 days after date of oral pronouncement. Moreover, once Dist. Ct. announced at sentencing hearing that instant sentence was to be served concurrently, any written judgment that conflicted with oral sentence was nullity where, as here, Dist. Ct.’s oral pronouncement was unambiguous.