Case ID: f-appx_168/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Renteria NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50358.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    
      Daniel Renteria-Nunez, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Renteria Nunez (Renteria), federal prisoner # 88091-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. Renteria maintains that an error was made in the written judgments because they fail to reflect the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing that his sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently with his prior sentence imposed in No. P-98-CR-119-F. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 authorizes the sentencing court to correct technical, clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record at any time. See Fed.R. Crim.P. 36; Accardi v. Blackwell, 412 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir.1969). “Rule 36 is the appropriate remedy to make the judgment and commitment papers conform to the sentence pronounced orally.” Cook v. United States, 426 F.2d 1358, 1360 (5th Cir.1970) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Renteria’s contention that the district court ordered his sentences in No. P-01CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F to run concurrently not only with each other, but with a prior sentence imposed in No. P-98-CR-119-F, is refuted by the transcript of the sentence hearing. At sentencing, the court ordered that the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently. The court made no comment on the concurrency of the sentence in No. P-98-CR-119-F in relation to the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F. The written judgments reflected that the sentences in No. P-01-CR-065-F and No. P-00-CR-425-F were to run concurrently with one another but were silent with regard to Renteria’s sentence in No. P-98CR-119-F. Thus, the district court made no clerical error in its written judgments, and it did not err in denying Renteria’s motion. As the appeal lacks arguable merit, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.