(quotation omitted).
Our first task, then, is to determine whether there is a conflict between the sentence as orally pronounced and the written judgment or, conversely, whether any discrepancy between the two merely reflects an ambiguity. The district court explained at the sentencing hearing that, although “the total intended loss is $117,395,” the “net” amount “owed in restitution” was $106,744. It clarified that, in arriving at that number, Tanner’s “previous payments ha[d] been subtracted.” The present confusion arises from its next statement, where it declared that “the [$]106,744 appears to be … the correct restitution amount, although in chambers we discussed the addition of language to the form for the suggested sentence that will read ‘subject to credits from IRS refunds, garnishments, and other payments, with a net balance currently showing due of $63,221.’”
After confirming with trial counsel that the statement was “accurate as a discussion point in an agreement between the Court and counsel,” the court went on to “find[] that the original calculation in the [presentence investigation report] of $106,744 is correct.” Then, apparently referring to the $106,744, the court affirmed that there was “an agreed amount of restitution.” But in its last word on the matter, the court reiterated its earlier statement. There, it proclaimed that “[r]estitution in the amount of $106,744 is ordered to be paid” and “that the restitution amount is subject to credits already received … with a current accounting balance for restitution shown at $63,221.”
As previously explained, the court then imposed restitution of $106,744 in the written judgment, which states that “[t]he defendant shall receive credit for all payments previously made … .” The written judgment does not, however, provide $63,221 as the “current accounting balance for restitution,” as mentioned in the oral pronouncement.
3
