Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Espinosa's Letter regarding Sentence, (ECF No. 58), which the Court interprets as a motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Rule 36. The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 62). On April 25, 2016, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment without the benefit of a plea agreement, (ECF No. 34). Defendant filed his sentencing memorandum on July 27, 2016, (ECF No. 45),
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Espinosa's Letter regarding Sentence, (ECF No. 58), which the Court interprets as a motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Rule 36. The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 62). On April 25, 2016, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment without the benefit of a plea agreement, (ECF No. 34). Defendant filed his sentencing memorandum on July 27, 2016, (ECF No. 45), a..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael Espinosa's Letter regarding Sentence, (ECF No. 58), which the Court interprets as a motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Rule 36. The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 62).
On April 25, 2016, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment without the benefit of a plea agreement, (ECF No. 34). Defendant filed his sentencing memorandum on July 27, 2016, (ECF No. 45), and the government filed its Sentencing Memorandum on August 1, 2016, (ECF No. 49). Neither memoranda indicated a position on whether or not Defendant's sentence was to run concurrent nor consecutive with any state sentence. The Court, having reviewed the audio recording from the sentencing hearing held on August 4, 2016, finds that the issue raised in the motion regarding concurrent versus consecutive sentences was never raised or addressed at the time of sentencing.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion, (ECF No. 58), is DENIED.
