Opinion ID: 4256266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence Clarification

Text: The sentencing court initially wrote in the judgments for the second case that the concurrent sentence in that case would run concurrently “with any discharged term of custody [in the first case],” ROA at 82, 90, 98. It later clarified that it meant “undischarged.” ROA at 109. Mr. Manni argues that the BOP erred in relying on the judge when he clarified “his intention [was] that the sentence [for the three offenses] run concurrent with each other and concurrent with undischarged portion of the [firearms] sentence.” Aplt. Br. at 3. He asserts that the sentencing judge’s oral statement of the sentence at the sentencing hearing conflicted with the written judgment imposing the sentence and that the oral statement should control. It follows, he contends, that the 70-month sentence from the second case should coincide with the 70-month sentence from the first case. Although an unambiguous oral sentence controls over a conflicting written judgment, see United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1450-51 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc), Mr. Manni is not entitled to relief on this ground. First, there was no conflict here between an unambiguous oral sentence and a written judgment. At the sentencing hearing on June 16, 2015, the district court said that the concurrent sentence in the second case would run “concurrent to the sentence that will be imposed in” the first case. Transcript of Sentencing at 31, United States 5 v. Manni, No. 13-20224, et al. (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2015), Doc. No. 83. It further said that the sentence in the first case would be “concurrent also as to the sentence that was handed down” in the second case. Id. at 34. There was no mention of “discharged” or “undischarged” time on the first sentence.6 It was clear to all that Mr. Manni had already served 11 months and 7 days on the first sentence since it was imposed on July 9, 2014. Although BOP sought clarification from the district court regarding the written judgments in the second case, there was no conflict, much less an unambiguous one, between the judgments and what the court said at the sentencing hearing.