Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar RODRIGUEZ-ALBIR, also known as Oscar Rodriguez-Elvir, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-17
Citations: 612 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 15-40043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar RODRIGUEZ-ALBIR, also known as Oscar Rodriguez-Elvir, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 783–784

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar RODRIGUEZ-ALBIR, also known as Oscar Rodriguez-Elvir, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40043
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2015.
As Revised Aug. 17, 2015.
Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Oscar Rodriguez-Albir, Laredo, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Rodriguez-Albir appeals the district court's reimposition of a $100 special assessment after the court revoked his supervised release. A review of the revocation hearing transcript reveals that the district court made no findings as to whether Rodriguez-Albir satisfied the special assessment imposed at his original sentencing and did not orally reimpose the special assessment. Thus, as the Government concedes, there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, and the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we VACATE IN PART and REMAND for the district court to delete the reimposition of the $100 special assessment from the written judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.