Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20038 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. J OH N P A UL R OT H , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 97- C R

- 96- 1

B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * J o h n P a u l R o t h , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#7 6 0 9 4 -0 7 9 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s deni alof

hi s m ot i on f

i l ed i n D ec em ber2008 und erFeder alR ul e o f C r i m i nal Proc edur e 3 6 t o c or r ec t a n a l l eg ed c l er i c aler r ori n t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s 1999 ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n . In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 , R o th w a s a r r e s te d b y s ta te o ffic ia ls
on charges of

drug possess i on . AT exas court sentenced h i m t o a 20-year pri son t er m i n A ugust1997. That s am e m ont h i n fede r alc our t , h e p l ea ded gui l t y, pur s uantt o a pl e a ag r e e m e nt , t o pa r t i ci pa t i ng i n a dr ug c o ns pi r ac y and a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20038

In late Au gu st 199 7, Roth was brou ght into federal custody from state custody , wher e 1 he was serving

his st ate sente nce, byth e fe deralcourt’s writof hab eas corpu s ad prosequen dum; h e also asserts that two days after hi s January 199 9 fe deralsentenc e h e was tran sferred back to state custodyto serve his state sente nce, that in May 200 1 h e was parol ed from his state se ntence and was to takenint o f ederal custodyto serve th e re main der of his federal se ntence. 2 c o n s p ir a c yto la u n d e rm o n e y . T h o u g h R o th ’ s p r io r c o n v ic tio n s m a d e h im e lig ib le f o ra m and at o r y s e nt e nc e o f l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nt , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s m o t i o n und e rU
. S. S. G

. § 5K 1. 1 ( s ubs t ant i alc o o pe r at i o n) a nd
s e nt e nc e d Ro t h t o co nc ur r e ntpr i s o n t e r m s : 26 4 m o nt hs on t he dr ug c o unta nd 2 4 0 m on th s on th e m on ey -l a u n d erin g cou n t. A ft er th e cou rt en tered j u d gm en t, it g r a n ted the G ov ern m en t’ s ag ree d m oti on to am en d i t, as re l ev a n t he re, “to ref l ectt h at t h e sentences i m posed i n t h e federalcase ( 264 an d 24 0 m on t h s) are t o ru n con current to the defenda n t ’ s s en t en ce i m posed ” i n st ate c ou rt
. Th e court t he n e nt e r e d t he a m e nde d j udg m e nt , re c o m m e ndi ng t hatR o t h’ s se nt e nc e “ r un con cu rren t t o th e term i m p ose d ” i n the T ex a s cou rt. T h e B o a r d o f P r is o n s d e te r m in e d th a t R o th w a s e n tit le d to cr e d it o n h is fede ra lsen ten ce for the ap p rox i m a tel y n i n e m on th s th a t he sp en t i n state
cu stod y a ft er h i s ar rest b u t before h e w a s sen ten ced i n T ex a s. A c c o r d i n g to R oth , h e i s a l so el i gible to rece i ve cred i t for th e som e 1 7 m on th s serv ed i n state
c ust ody af

t erhe r ecei ve d h i s st at e s ent enc e i n A ugust1997 but be f or e he w as sentenced i n federalcourti n Jan u ary 199 9 ( t h i s t i m e app ar en t l y w as cr edi t ed aga i n st h i s st ate sentence)

. R ot h argu es t h at t h e 199 9 federalj u dg m en tdoes 1 notc l ear l y r ef

l ec tt he s ent enc i ng c our t ’ s i nt entt hat t he s t at e a nd fede r al
s e n te n c e s ru n “fu llyco n c u r r e n tly .” R o th h a s n o t e s ta b lis h e d th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in gh is i ns t antRul e 3 6 m o t i o n t o correc t t he j udg m e nt
. A di s t r i c tc o ur t“ m aya ta ny t i m e corr ect a cl eri cal error i n a j u dg m en t ” t h at ari ses f rom an “ oversi gh tor om i ssion

. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 36. Acl eri calerr or oc curs w h en “ t h e courti n t en ded
on e th i n g b u t by m ere l y clerical m i stak e or o ve rsigh t did a n ot h er.” Un i t edN o. 09- 20038

Relief und er 2 8 U .S.C. § 22 55 h as not b eensou ght and is in anyevent plainlyan d 2 faci allyb arr edb ylim it ation s un de r 2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 5 (f ). 3 S t ate s v. B u end i a-R angel , 553 F. 3d 378 , 3 7 9 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S ta tes v . S t een , 5 5 F. 3d 1 02 2, 1 02 6 n. 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) )

. N o t hi ng i n t he r e cord esta b l i sh es th a t t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t did n ot acc u ra tel y re fl ect i ts i n ten t. The j udg m e ntdo e s no t c o nt r ad i c t any t hi ng t hat t he j udg e s ai d at t he s e nt e nc i ng h e a r in g . Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Sl ani na , 359 F
. 3d 356 , 357

- 58 (5t h C i r. 200 4) ( per curi am )

. Indeed , t h e rec ord show s t h at t h e courtcr af t ed the rel evan tport i on of t he j udg m e nte xp r e s s l y as t he pa r t i e s re que s t e d i n t he agr e e d m o t i o n t o a m e nd t h e ju d g m e n t . R o t h ’s a r g u m e n tth a tth e ju d g m e n td o e s n o t r e f l e c tth e c o u r t ’s in te n t t o a p p lyU .S .S .G § 5 G 1 .3 (b ) is m is p la c e d b e c a u s e n o m e n tio n o f th is gu i del i n e w as m ad e at senten cin g , so t h ere i s no evi den ce t h at t h e court i nt e nde d f

o ri tt o have any e f

fe c ton t he se nt e nc e . M o r e o ve r , Rot h i s no te nt i t l e d,
as he i ns i s t s , t o a m o r e de t ai l e d e xp l ana t i o n i n t he j udg m e ntr e ga r di ng ho w t he
se nt enc e s houl d be exe c ut ed. The j udgm ent i s c ons i st entw i t h t he c our t ’ s verbal
ex p l a n a ti on of th e sen ten ce a n d i ts gra n t of the m oti on to am en d the j u d gm en t; th u s R u le 3 6 c a n n o t b e u s e d to cla r ify th e s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. Patr i ck Pe t r o l e um Cor

p. , 7 0 3 F .2d 9 4 , 9 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). T o th e e x te n t t h a t R o th a r g u e s th a t th e B u r e a u o f P r is o n s h a s in c o r r e c tly
c al c ul at ed hi s se nt enc e, t hi s c l ai m i s notc ogni zabl e i n a m ot i on underR ul e 3 6. S ee Un i t ed S t ates v. Mares , 86 8 F
. 2 d 15 1 , 15 1 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 9 ). R a th er, R oth
m u s t ra is e it in a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 4 1 file d in th e d is tr ic t w h e r e h e is in c a r c e r a te d

. I

d. at151- 52. 2 T h e d e c i s i o n o f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.