Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrin DENT, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lynell Dent, a.k.a. Darryl Dent, a.k.a. Danny Madison Hill, a.k.a. Darren Mejesse Hill, a.k.a. Darrin Hill, a.k.a. D. Madison, a.k.a. Dennis Madison, a.k.a. Anthony Madra, a.k.a. Keno Peoples, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-21
Citations: 519 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 11-50548
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrin DENT, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lynell Dent, a.k.a. Darryl Dent, a.k.a. Danny Madison Hill, a.k.a. Darren Mejesse Hill, a.k.a. Darrin Hill, a.k.a. D. Madison, a.k.a. Dennis Madison, a.k.a. Anthony Madra, a.k.a. Keno Peoples, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrin DENT, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lynell Dent, a.k.a. Darryl Dent, a.k.a. Danny Madison Hill, a.k.a. Darren Mejesse Hill, a.k.a. Darrin Hill, a.k.a. D. Madison, a.k.a. Dennis Madison, a.k.a. Anthony Madra, a.k.a. Keno Peoples, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 21, 2013.
Mack Jenkins, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christopher Khoo Pelham, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Law Office of Gene Vorobyov, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Darrin Dent appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges two conditions of supervised release imposed as part of his sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the legality of a sentence de novo, see United States v. Napier, 468 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Dent contends that two special conditions of supervised release included in the written judgment must be modified or stricken because they were not included in the oral pronouncement of sentencing. We disagree. The written judgment controls because it did not add any substantive conditions to Dent's sentence that went beyond what Dent and his counsel could have anticipated from the court's statements at the sentencing hearing. See id. at 1043.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.