Defendant-Appellant Carlos Gil-Perez appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges the reimposition of a $100 special assessment in the district court’s written judgment.

We generally review revocation sentences under the “plainly unreasonable” standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3742. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A review of the transcript of the instant revocation hearing reflects that the district court’s reimposition of the special assessment in the written judgment is contrary to its oral pronouncement and to evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. In such a situation, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). We therefore modify the district court’s judgment, striking the reimposed $100 special assessment so that the written judgment conforms with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; *440 United States v. Orduna-Perales, 530 Fed.Appx. 355, 356 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.