USA v. Morales, 05-cr-30040-MAP. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20171122f41
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLARIFYING SENTENCE (Dkt. No. 106) MICHAEL A. PONSOR , District Judge . On February 23, 2007, this court sentenced Defendant to a term of 240 months. Due to an oversight, the court did not specifically indicate in the written judgment whether this sentence was to run concurrently with, or consecutive to, any state court sentence. This memorandum is intended to clarify the court's intent. The court imposed the 20-year sentence with the intention that it run concurren
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLARIFYING SENTENCE (Dkt. No. 106) MICHAEL A. PONSOR , District Judge . On February 23, 2007, this court sentenced Defendant to a term of 240 months. Due to an oversight, the court did not specifically indicate in the written judgment whether this sentence was to run concurrently with, or consecutive to, any state court sentence. This memorandum is intended to clarify the court's intent. The court imposed the 20-year sentence with the intention that it run concurrent..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLARIFYING SENTENCE
(Dkt. No. 106)
MICHAEL A. PONSOR, District Judge.
On February 23, 2007, this court sentenced Defendant to a term of 240 months. Due to an oversight, the court did not specifically indicate in the written judgment whether this sentence was to run concurrently with, or consecutive to, any state court sentence. This memorandum is intended to clarify the court's intent.
The court imposed the 20-year sentence with the intention that it run concurrently with any sentence imposed in the state court. The calculation of Defendant's release date by the Bureau of Prisons should reflect this intent.
The government's concern that this clarification might constitute a formal correction or reduction of the original sentence, not recognized by the rules, is misplaced. This memorandum is not intended to change the original sentence, but merely to clarify the court's intent in imposing that sentence back in 2007. This clearer landscape will permit the Bureau of Prisons to respond accordingly in its calculation of Defendant's release date.
To this extent, Defendant's pro se motion, which has been denominated a Motion to Alter Judgment (Dkt. No. 106) on the docket, is hereby ALLOWED. The clerk will prepare an amended judgment to memorialize this clarification.
It is So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
