Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Gene RAY, Jr., a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Romello, a/k/a Daddy, a/k/a Young Mac, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-27
Citations: 310 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 07-50298
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Gene RAY, Jr., a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Romello, a/k/a Daddy, a/k/a Young Mac, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Gene RAY, Jr., a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Romello, a/k/a Daddy, a/k/a Young Mac, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50298.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
Filed Jan. 27, 2009.
Tammy C. Spertus, Esq., Jean-Claude André, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Elizabeth A. Newman, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a criminal appeal challenging the district court's imposition of a mental health condition of supervised release.
A review of the record and the opening brief demonstrates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Appellant argues that the oral pronouncement of sentence erroneously delegated the authority to impose mental health treatment as a condition of appellant's supervised release. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 7. However, the district court's written judgment and commitment order corrected this error. See Appellant's Excerpts of Record, Vol. I, p. 12; Appellant's Opening Brief p. 10, n. 2. No other error is alleged on appeal. See Appellant's Opening Brief p. 1. As such, the correction supersedes the erroneous oral sentence. See Fed. R. of Crim. Proc. 35; United States v. Colace, 126 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir.1997).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court, and instruct that the district court's written Judgment and Commitment Order should control appellantdefen-dant's sentence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.