Defendant-Appellant Fabian Lopez-Ramirez appeals the district court’s written judgment to the extent it is in conflict with the district judge’s oral pronouncement.
At sentencing, the district judge stated that Lopez-Ramirez must “advise any law enforcement officer stopping [him] that [he is] on supervision for illegal reentry.” However, the special conditions section of the written judgment provides that “upon contact with law enforcement, [Lopez-Ramirez] shall inform [the officer(s) ] that he is an undocumented alien who is on supervised release.” Lopez-Ramirez' argues that the written requirement that he identify himself as an “undocumented alien” is more onerous than the oral condition and violates the Fifth Amendment. The government argues that, to the extent the conditions conflict, the written condition is narrower and less burdensome than the oral condition.
Without reaching Lopez-Ramirez’s constitutional argument, we conclude that the *176written judgment does not mirror the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, we remand the case so that the district court may conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of the special condition of supervised release. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (“ ‘[Wjhen there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls.’ ” (quoting United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001))).
REMANDED FOR CONFORMANCE OF WRITTEN JUDGMENT.