In the
    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________

No. 23-1830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                 v.

JEROME D. FORD,
                                               Defendant-Appellant.
                     ____________________

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
        No. 1:22CR00004-001 — James Patrick Hanlon, Judge.
                     ____________________

        ARGUED JUNE 5, 2024 — DECIDED JULY 1, 2024
                 ____________________

   Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI,
Circuit Judges.
    EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A district judge sentenced Je-
rome Ford to 96 months in prison for possessing a firearm,
despite his felony conviction. 

(g)(1). Three years
of supervised release will follow Ford’s release. The judgment
provides, among many other conditions: “If this judgment
imposes a fine or restitution, it is a condition of supervised
release that the defendant pay in accordance with the
2                                                   No. 23-1830

Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment.” Ford’s fine is
$250; the court did not order him to pay restitution. All the
“Schedule of Payments” sheet provides is that Ford must start
paying immediately.
     Ford presents only one appellate issue. He contends that
the payment condition of supervised release is unauthorized
because the judge did not mention it during sentencing, and
it also did not appear in the presentence report (whose recom-
mendations were adopted orally at sentencing). When the
oral pronouncement and the written judgment in a criminal
case conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. See, e.g.,
United States v. Johnson, 

, 710–11 (7th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Alburay, 

 (7th Cir. 2005). Ford
asks us to delete the payment condition from the judgment.
    We have recognized at least one exception to the rule that
oral prevails over written. A condition of supervision re-
quired by law (that is, a mandatory condition) need not be
announced orally. United States v. Anstice, 

(7th Cir. 2019). Some conditions are required by statute, see

(d), but the payment condition is not in that
category. It is, however, on a list of mandatory conditions in
the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. §5D1.3(a)(5). That may be
how it found its way to the judgment in Ford’s case. This con-
dition is preprinted on the 2016 version of Form AO 245B
(Judgment in a Criminal Case) circulated by the Administra-
tive Office of the United States Courts—but it does not appear
on the most recent version (effective September 2019). The
district court used the 2019 version for the first page of Ford’s
judgment and took the remaining pages from the 2016 ver-
sion; he did not explain why.
No. 23-1830                                                    3

    Ford asserts that the Guidelines’ list of mandatory condi-
tions ceased being mandatory after United States v. Booker, 

 (2005), declared the Guidelines to be advisory. That
is not necessarily true. As an application of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 

 (2000), Booker concerns the jury’s role in
determining minimum and maximum sentences. The reme-
dial opinion in Booker solved the Apprendi problem by declar-
ing that the upper and lower ends of the Guidelines’ ranges
are not binding. It held that 

(b)(1), which re-
quires district courts to respect the minimum and maximum
ranges set by the Guidelines, is invalid. 

. Nei-
ther of the two majority opinions in Booker (Justice Stevens for
a majority on the merits, and Justice Breyer for a majority on
the remedy) suggests that the conditions of supervised re-
lease, which are unrelated to minimum and maximum sen-
tences and have never been the province of juries, are prob-
lematic. The remedial opinion lists 

, which co-
vers supervised release, as among provisions not affected by
Booker. Compare 

 with 

.
    As far as we know, neither the Supreme Court nor any
court of appeals has held since Booker that conditions required
by §3583(d) or U.S.S.G. §5D1.3 are no longer mandatory. At
least one circuit has said that Booker does not affect conditions
of supervised release. United States v. Reyes, 

,
1137–38 (9th Cir. 2021). Many decisions, including some in
this circuit, e.g., United States v. Bangsengthong, 

 (7th Cir. 2008), declare broadly that “the Guidelines” are
not mandatory after Booker, but none of these concerns condi-
tions of supervised release or discusses the way the remedial
opinion in Booker separated valid from invalid statutes.
4                                                   No. 23-1830

    The brief for the United States does not make anything of
this, however. It ventures that the payment condition “may
be mandatory” but does not take a firm position. Instead the
prosecutor argues that the payment condition isn’t that much
of a departure from the oral pronouncement. Given the prin-
ciple of party presentation, see United States v. Sineneng-Smith,

 (2020), we accept the implied concession for the
purpose of this appeal, while reserving the subject for deci-
sion in some future case in which it has been the subject of
adversarial briefing.
   It follows that the payment condition must be vacated. The
rule that the oral sentence controls has an exception for man-
datory conditions but not for all conditions that prosecutors
deem minor.
    It is not clear whether our decision will help Ford. A stat-
ute, 18 U.S.C. §3613A(a)(1), provides that people who do not
pay their fines may be returned to prison. That statute applies
to Ford during his supervised release whether or not a pay-
ment condition appears in the judgment. And §3583(e)(2) pro-
vides that courts may add or delete conditions of supervised
release at any time. If the district judge thinks the payment
condition important, he may add it to the judgment. All we
decide today is that one particular condition that appears in
the judgment, but was not mentioned or adopted by incorpo-
ration during sentencing, must be vacated.
  The district court’s judgment is modified to delete the pay-
ment condition.