
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Neftali Zuniga-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-41028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 4, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Fabian Lopez-Ramirez, Raymondville, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Fabian Lopez-Ramirez appeals the district court’s written judgment to the extent it is in conflict with the district judge’s oral pronouncement.

At sentencing, the district judge stated that Lopez-Ramirez must “advise any law enforcement officer stopping [him] that [he is] on supervision for illegal reentry.” However, the special conditions section of the written judgment provides that “upon contact with law enforcement, [Lopez-Ramirez] shall inform [the officer(s) ] that he is an undocumented alien who is on supervised release.” Lopez-Ramirez' argues that the written requirement that he identify himself as an “undocumented alien” is more onerous than the oral condition and violates the Fifth Amendment. The government argues that, to the extent the conditions conflict, the written condition is narrower and less burdensome than the oral condition.

Without reaching Lopez-Ramirez’s constitutional argument, we conclude that the written judgment does not mirror the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, we remand the case so that the district court may conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of the special condition of supervised release. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (“ ‘[Wjhen there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.’ ” (quoting United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001))).

REMANDED FOR CONFORMANCE OF WRITTEN JUDGMENT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     