STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 36

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, Senior District Judge.

On August 3, 2016, Defendant Rudy Wyatt pleaded guilty to one count of theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661. Mr. Wyatt pled pursuant to a plea agreement entered into under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See Dkt. No. 11. He was sentenced on the same day. On August 3, 2016, this Court accepted the parties' plea agreement and sentenced Mr. Wyatt to a term of custody of 12 months and 1 day, to run concurrently with all state sentences that Mr. Wyatt is currently serving, plus a $100 Special Assessment. Dkt. No. 10. At the time of Mr. Wyatt's federal sentencing before this Court, he was in the primary custody of the Marin County Sheriff's Department. See Dkt. No. 4.

The Judgment was entered on August 8, 2016. Dkt. No. 12. The parties' Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which the Court accepted, called for the federal sentence to run "concurrently with all state sentences currently pending." Dkt. 11 ¶ 8(a). The Judgment does not expressly address whether Mr. Wyatt's custodial sentence of 12 months and 1 day should run concurrently to the state sentences that he is currently serving. Without an express statement in the Judgment that the sentences should run concurrently, the Bureau of Prisons will presume that they are to run consecutively.

The parties understand this to be a clerical error. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 36, the parties now jointly request that the Judgment be corrected to explicitly provide that the instant sentence should run concurrent to the state sentence. Specifically, the parties request that the term of imprisonment set forth on page 2 of the Judgment read, "twelve (12) months and one (1) day, to run concurrent to all state and local sentences that Mr. Wyatt is currently serving."

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.