
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence ROMO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50124
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Joanna Moriah Curtis, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lawrence Romo appeals from the district court’s judgment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand with instructions to correct the judgment.

Romo contends that this case should be remanded for the district court to correct three errors in the written judgment. The government agrees, as do we. First, the record reflects that Romo was convicted of possession, not distribution, of child pornography. Accordingly, the court shall strike the judgment’s description of Romo’s offense and replace it with: possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2).

Second, the district court shall conform the language of condition number 10 of supervised release in the written judgment to the language of condition number 11 in the December 11, 2014 “Notice of Conditions of Supervised Release” that the parties agree was incorporated by reference into the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993) (remanding to conform the written judgment to the oral' sentence because the oral pronouncement controls).

Finally, the district court shall uncheck the box requiring Romo to comply with General Order 01-05. The court did not impose this condition at sentencing and it is inapplicable here because Romo was not ordered to pay a fine or restitution. See C.D. Cal. General Order 01-05.

VACATED and REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     