Opinion ID: 662199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1990 Sentence Modification

Text: 8 Chavez argues that the 1990 sentence modification was illegal because the district court improperly struck the special parole term from the substantive counts and added it to the CCE count, which exceeded the court's authority. We disagree. 9 It clearly appears from the record that the district court did not decide to strike the special parole term from the substantive counts and add it to the CCE count. The only sentence that is legally cognizable is the actual oral pronouncement in the presence of the defendant. United States v. Bergmann, 836 F.2d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Chavez was present at the modification hearing. The special parole term was not mentioned in the papers or at the hearing; the discussion concerned only reduction of the term of imprisonment. The court's oral pronouncement concerned only reduction of the term of imprisonment. We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the form of the amended judgment. However, we construe the modification order of January 16, 1990, to read as follows: 10 ... Ten (10) years on Count Two (2), no parole pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 846. 2 11 As to Counts 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 22, and 35, the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his duly authorized representative for a period of (10) ten years on each count and shall become eligible for parole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4205(a), said sentences to be served concurrently with one another and with the sentence imposed in Count 2. 12 It is further ordered that as to counts 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 35, the defendant shall serve a life special parole term. 13 It is further ordered that the sentence imposed in this case be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in CR 85-78. 14 The court orders commitment to the custody of the Attorney General and recommends Geiger Correction Center, Spokane, Washington.