Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis CAO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-04
Citations: 540 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 11-31018
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis CAO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 422–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis CAO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-31018
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 2013.
Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Gwendolyn Kay Brown, Parish Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Louis Cao, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis Cao pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 3,4-methylenedi-oxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argues that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded so that the district court may conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement by removing a special condition of supervision requiring him to participate in a mental health program and assist in the cost of the treatment. The Government asserts that there is no conflict between the written judgment and the oral pronouncement of sentence and that consideration of the issue is barred by a waiver provision in Cao's plea agreement.
It is unnecessary to address the waiver issue because the Government is correct that there is no conflict between the district court's oral pronouncement and its written judgment. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 (5th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.