Javier Lumbreras-Trevino pled guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court’s written judgment of sentence conflicts with its oral pronouncement of sentence. The government agrees.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court departed upward from the Guidelines range of two to eight months. The court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, finding that the Guidelines under*469stated Lumbreras-Trevmo s criminal history category and his criminal history. However, on page three of the statement of reasons attached to the written judgment, the district court checked boxes indicating that it had imposed a sentence “below the advisory guidelines range,” pursuant to a “government motion for a sentence outside of the advisory guideline system.”
Because the written judgment is internally inconsistent and conflicts with the oral pronouncement of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).
The case is remanded for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence. See id.
REMANDED.