Louis Cao pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 3,4-methylenedi-oxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argues that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded so that the district court may conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement by removing a special condition of supervision requiring him to participate in a mental health program and assist in the cost of the treatment. The Government asserts that there is no conflict between the written judgment and the oral pronouncement of sentence and that consideration of the issue is barred by a waiver provision in Cao’s plea agreement.

It is unnecessary to address the waiver issue because the Government is correct that there is no conflict between the district court’s oral pronouncement and its written judgment. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 (5th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.