the seriousness of the crime, the need to deter others, and the interest of society as a whole.
The district court did that. See A118:4-9, A118:19-119:1. It then determined that 135
months incarceration was appropriate. We do not require that a district court “discuss and
make findings as to each of the § 3553(a) factors if the record makes clear the court took
the factors into account in sentencing.” Vargas, 477 F.3d at 101; see A114:2-A119:2.
We are, however, concerned about what appears to be a clerical error on page 2 of
the Judgment the court entered on April 1, 2008. That Judgment only credits Orozco with
the 11 months he served in Combita Prison. A8. However, the transcript from the
sentencing hearing clearly shows that the district court credited Orozco with the prison
time he served in Passaic County Jail (almost 39 months) in addition to the time he served
awaiting extradition in Colombia. A109:23-25, A119:11-16. The court stated: “I direct
that the B.O.P. give him credit for the time he spent in . . . Combita [Prison], as well as in
Passaic County Jail.” A109:23-25.
Accordingly, we will remand for the sole purpose of allowing the sentencing court
to clarify this apparent clerical error so that Orozco can receive all the credit that the
district court intended to give him. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 provides: “After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the
court may at any time 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.”