ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

Christopher Hulskamper is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to a judgment on revocation of supervised release entered February 16, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) It has come to the attention of the Court that a discrepancy exists between the oral judgment on revocation given during Mr. Hulskamper's revocation hearing on January 15, 2016, (ECF No. 35), and the written judgment subsequently entered, (ECF No. 36). Accordingly, the Court now contemplates entering an amended judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct a clerical error in the written judgment so it may reflect the clear intention of the Court as expressed at the revocation hearing.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After serving a sentence of one hundred months in federal prison, Mr. Hulskamper violated the terms of his supervised release, and was brought before this Court for a revocation hearing on January 15, 2016. (See ECF No. 35.) During the hearing, Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Duncan and Probation Officer Aaron Mauga joined together in recommending a sentence of twenty-four months of imprisonment and twelve months of supervised release to follow. In rebuttal, Federal Public Defender Paul Riddle asserted that the guideline range for Mr. Hulskamper's violations was eight to fourteen months, and recommended a sentence of fourteen months of imprisonment and no supervised release.

After listening to the attorneys' arguments and Mr. Hulskamper's statement, the Court imposed a sentence of twenty-four months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. The Court's ruling was clear, and restated a second time at the close of the hearing. Moreover, the oral judgment was expressly based on the Court's findings that Mr. Hulskamper would not be benefitted by supervised release, is incapable of abiding by the terms of supervised release, and is "violent and a danger to others and himself when he is out of custody."

Despite the Court's imposition of twenty-four months of imprisonment at the revocation hearing, the written judgment reflected a sentence of twelve months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. Due to this discrepancy, the Court is now considering an amended judgment under Rule 36 to correct the error in the written judgment, that it may reflect a sentence of twenty-four months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. The Court is informed that Mr. Hulskamper is due to be released from custody, based on the twelve-month sentence in the written judgment, in January 2017.

II. BRIEFING ORDER

Therefore, in light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties will submit briefs on the propriety of a Rule 36 amended judgment in this matter. The parties will prepare and submit their briefs concurrently, within seven days following entry of this Order. No time will be given for responsive briefs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.