Defendant Jose Abraham Estrada-Lugo appeals from his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), with a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 1. We have jurisdiction because the district court’s oral statements conflict with the plea agreement’s waiver of the right to appeal the sole issue here, which is whether Defendant’s conviction for negligent homicide is, or is not, an aggravated felony. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). When the court asked Defendant whether he
holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control