
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10471.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 22, 2011.
    Wade Maxwell Rhyne, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Mark Stuart Goldrosen, Esquire, Law Office of Mark Goldrosen, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Louie Rodriguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 77-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm the conviction, but remand for the limited purpose of conforming the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of sentence.

Rodriguez contends the case should be remanded to conform special condition of supervised release number 2 in the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of sentence. The government agrees. The record demonstrates that the written judgment — which requires Rodriguez to provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information, including tax returns, and authorizes the probation office to conduct checks and obtain copies of income tax returns — is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of sentence, which does not contain that requirement. The condition regarding financial information is therefore not a cognizable part of Rodriguez’s sentence and must be stricken from the written judgment. See United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls).

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     