Opinion ID: 1433951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Correction of the Amended Judgment

Text: Finally, we note that the amended judgment entered in this case does not accurately reflect the judgment imposed on Carr at his sentencing hearing. The written amended judgment states that the concurrent prison terms imposed for Counts 1 and 2 are 30 years. Yet the sentencing transcript revealsand the parties' briefs on appeal reflectthat the court orally announced a 40-year total prison term that included imprisonment for 35 years on Counts 1 and 2 ( see S.Tr. 23, quoted in Part I. B. above). [W]here there is a direct conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment. . . the oral pronouncement, as correctly reported, must control. United States v. Marquez, 506 F.2d 620, 622 (2d Cir.1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., United States v. DeMartino, 112 F.3d 75, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 347 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Pagan, 785 F.2d 378, 380 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 667, 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); United States v. Moyles, 724 F.2d 29, 30 (2d Cir.1983). Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corrected amended judgment, reflecting the sentence actually imposed.