Leslie Ray Newsome (Newsome) appeals his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base following the revocation of his supervised release. Newsome argues that at *447 the sentencing following the revocation of his supervised release, the district court expressly directed that his supervised release would be “on the same terms as we had before.” Newsome further argues that neither the previous supervision order nor the court’s oral pronouncement prohibited him from possessing a dangerous weapon. Newsome argues that the condition barring his possession of “any other dangerous weapon” must be stricken from the written judgment because it conflicts with the sentence orally pronounced by the district court.

For the reasons outlined in United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court’s omission of the dangerous weapon prohibition during the oral pronouncement of sentence did not create a conflict with the sentence set forth in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.