Miguel Perez-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he appeals the district court’s reimposition of a $100 special assessment. Perez-Hernandez argues that the assessment should be stricken from the written judgment because it is contrary to the oral pronouncement and evidence presented at the revo *607 cation hearing. He further contends that he is no longer obligated under 18 U.S.C. § 3013(b) to pay the assessment. The Government concedes that the district court lacked authority to reimpose the special assessment and that it should be stricken from the written judgment.

A review of the transcript from the revocation hearing reflects that the district court’s imposition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral pronouncement and evidence presented at the hearing. Moreover, as the Government also concedes, the district court lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 to reimpose a special assessment. See United States v. Pineda, 594 F.3d 892, 892-93 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is REFORMED to omit the $100 special assessment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.