PROCEDURAL ORDER

D. BROCK HORNBY, District Judge.

The defendant/petitioner has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his motion to correct the trial transcript. The defendant/petitioner challenges the Magistrate Judge's ruling that his statement under penalties of perjury that a sentence he uttered was omitted from the transcript is insufficient to overcome the prima facie correctness of the transcript under 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). In objecting to the original motion to correct the transcript, the government asserted that "the Court . . . is entitled to rely on its own memory of that proceeding." Opp'n at 13 (ECF No. 195). Given the passage of time and the number of hearings in the interval, I have no independent recollection of the exact words the defendant/petitioner used. I am quite certain that the addition of the sentence the defendant/petitioner says was omitted ("I want to do the talking") would not have affected my ruling that he could have a lawyer or he could represent himself, but not both, and that it would not have affected the appellate outcome or collateral relief. Nevertheless, in the interest of having a full record, I DIRECT the government to ask the court reporter to review her audio record of the hearing (usually the court reporter has one) and, after review, to re-certify what is the accurate transcript for this portion of the hearing. The re-certification shall be filed by July 14, 2016.

SO ORDERED.