Rivera-Sanchez argues that the inclusion of § 1326(b)(2) in the judgment is potentially harmful because it may cause confusion as to the number of his convictions. Such confusion, he argues, could adversely affect him if he were to face a more severe punishment based on the number of prior convictions he has in his record. This type of error, however, is at most clerical and may be corrected pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure without the need for a new trial or a new sentencing hearing. See Fed. R.Crim. Proc. 36 (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record ... may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”); see also United States v. Thomas, 774 F.2d 807, 814 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hanna, 639 F.2d 192, 194
holding that severance was not required when a defendant was charged with five counts of forcible rape two counts of felonious restraint three counts of kidnapping two counts of armed criminal action two counts of forcible sodomy one count of second degree assault one count of first degree robbery and one count of stealing holding that where the trial courts determination that the defendant was mentally capable to proceed with trial was not supported by the evidence the verdict and judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings against the defendant holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the court made a clerical error or was just guilty of creating ambiguous verbiage where it sentenced the defendant to parole under counts four and five instead of one and three and concluding that the answer is for the order to be corrected not vacated holding tha1  where a section 924c count of the federal criminal code was a lesser included offense of a section 924j charge  the overlap between the two counts was no bar to their simultaneous prosecution and  defendant was instead entitled only to have the sentences on both counts merged in the event he was found guilty of both