Whether a federal district judge can amend a final sentence years later to a defendant's detriment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a federal district judge can make the ; internally contradictory oral pronouncement that a federal sentence is to be served concurrent with one of two perfectly concurrent state sentences, but only partially consecutive with the other state sentence, and then eight years later once that federal sentence was served concurrently by the defendant, change : that sentence to partially consecutive with both those state sentences; citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 36., and , what he claims he meant to say; doing so only after an ex parte conference with the Bureau of Prisons, which alerted him that the irreconcilable conflict that could only be legally amended through a 18 U.S.C. 33582 (c) motion in the defendant’s favor could be averted if such an illegal amendment was returned to the Bureau of Prisons without notifying the unaware defendant. Whether coercive ex parte communications with U.S. judges intended to unfavorably affect resentencing of the accused require reversal. Whether a Judge’s original oral pronouncement controls, or whether his claimed intent controls. Whether a Judge’s claimed intent is amendable under FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. Whether a Judge’s coerced claimed intent allows the Court and the Bureau of Prisons to ignore the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c ). Whether amending a final judgment and oral pronouncement years later to a defendant’s detriment and without his knowledge violates the due process and double jeopardy clause of the U.S. ; Constitution. f \