Enrique Orduna-Perales appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s reimposition of a $100 special assessment.

We review revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742’s “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A review of *356 the transcript from the revocation hearing reflects that the district court’s reimposition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral pronouncement and evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the Government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is modified to strike the reimposition of the $100 special assessment so that the written judgment is in conformance with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment as so modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also United States v. Hermoso, 484 Fed.Appx. 970, 972-73 (5th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.