924 count. However, the sentencing transcript clearly indicates the district court’s intention to sentence Gordon to a total of 480 months’ imprisonment, and the court’s Statement of Reasons adopts the presentence report without change, including its recommendation of 360 months to life imprisonment on the § 846 count. It therefore appears beyond dispute that the court’s oral pronouncement of a 240-month sentence on the § 846 count was an inadvertent slip-of-the-tongue. Accordingly, because an actual ambiguity does not exist concerning the imposition of sentence, the rule of leniety is inapplicable. See United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th Cir.1995). 2 . Under the Vienna Convention, when a foreign national has been arrested, imprisoned, or taken into custody and h th Cir.2002)
holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment holding that apprendi error did not affect substantial rights where in the absence of the error the application of section 5g12d of the guidelines would have resulted in the same term of imprisonment holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case