USA v. Thornton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-255
CASEY THORNTON 	SECTION “R”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Casey Thornton’s motion to amend the
written judgment. 1 The Government does not oppose the motion. 2 For the
following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), a defendant may have
the sentence imposed corrected if there was an “arithmetical, technical, or
other 	clear 	error.” 	Rule 	35(a) 	specifically 	addresses 	corrections 	of
“sentences,” meaning the “oral announcement of the sentence.” 	United
States v. Spencer, 513 F.3d 490, 491 (5th Cir. 2008). 	Any such correction
must be within 14 days of sentencing. 	See 	Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35(a).
Additionally, Rule 36 allows courts, at any time, to “correct a clerical error in
a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the
record arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 36.
1 	R. Doc. 68.
2 	Id. at ¶ 5.
Case 2:23-cr-00255-SSV-MBN Document 69 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Here, there was neither an error in the oral sentence nor an error in the
written 	judgment. 	The 	sentence 	announced 	orally, 	and 	the 	sentence
proclaimed in the written judgment imposed a term of imprisonment of 51
months. 	Both were silent as to whether this term was to be served
concurrently with his Arizona state sentence in Case Number CR2022-
140043-001. This silence was not error.
The plea agreement in this case included that the government would
recommend and agreed not to oppose defendant’s request that the federal
sentence imposed by this Court run concurrently with his Arizona state
sentence.3 But this recommendation was not binding on the Court. See Fed.
R. Crim. Pro. 11(c)(1)(B) (“such a recommendation or request does not bind
the court”); see also United States v. Otte, 729 F.2d 1207, 1208 (9th Cir.
1984) (“[I]t is well-settled that acceptance of a plea agreement does not
require 	acceptance 	of 	its 	sentencing 	recommendation.”). 	The 	Court
evaluated the recommendation and determined that a concurrent sentence
was 	not 	appropriate 	here. 	Per 	the 	Presentence 	Investigation 	Report,
defendant was arrested in Arizona for the Arizona state charges on October
20, 2022. 4 	He was not indicted in the Eastern District of Louisiana until
3 	R. Doc. 54.
4 	R. Doc. 63.
Case 2:23-cr-00255-SSV-MBN Document 69 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
November 	17, 	2023, 5 	and 	the 	Factual 	Basis 	states 	that 	the 	conduct
precipitating the Federal charges occurred in August of 2023 and October of
2023. 6 This is after his Arizona arrest. Accordingly, the Court did not find it
appropriate to run this sentence concurrently with his Arizona sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 	R. Doc. 1.
6 	R. Doc. 55.
18th
Case 2:23-cr-00255-SSV-MBN Document 69 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 3