UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 99-4851

BENJI BOE HAMBY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-113)

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Decided: May 24, 2000

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bryan Emery Gates, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appel-
lant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Benji Boe Hamby appeals the district court's amended judgment
and commitment order. Hamby claims that the court was without
authority to amend the judgment and commitment order. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

We review de novo the question of whether the district court had
the authority to amend a judgment. See United States v. Layman, 116
F.3d 105, 108 (4th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other
parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or
omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such
notice, if any, as the court orders." "Rule 36 authorizes a court to cor-
rect only clerical errors in the transcription of judgments." See United
States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 343 (2d Cir. 1995). A court's unambig-
uous oral sentence is not negated by a subsequent written judgment
that does not reflect the oral sentence. See Rakes v. United States, 309
F.2d 686, 687-88 (4th Cir. 1962). "[W]e should carry out the true
intention of the sentencing judge as this may be gathered from what
he said at the time of sentencing." United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d
27, 30 (4th Cir. 1965).

We find that the district court properly amended the judgment and
commitment order to accurately reflect the court's oral sentence. The
amended judgment did not enhance Hamby's sentence beyond what
was stated in the oral pronouncement. Nor did it include provisions
not mentioned at sentencing. Furthermore, because the court merely
amended the judgment to conform to the oral sentence, Hamby was
not entitled to notice. See Rule 36; see also Werber, 51 F.3d at 347.
Nor was Hamby's right to due process violated because the district
court waited seven months to amend the judgment.

                    2
Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment and commitment
order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
