days prior to the termination of her supervised release conflicts with the oral pronouncement, which did not mention any such requirement. We disagree. At sentencing, the district court ordered that Wiley pay restitution in an amount to be determined, and that if-any restitution remains unpaid when her supervised release begins, she must make payments of at least $50 per month during her period of supervised release “until paid in full.” The district court’s written judgment clarifies that, if Wiley has not satisfied her entire restitution obligation through monthly payments as she nears the end of her term of supervised release, she must pay it in full no later than sixty days before that term expires. Cf. United States v. Cipolla, 531 Fed.Appx. 185, 186 (2d Cir.2013) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). This part of the written -judgment therefore
holding that reinstatement was insufficient to remedy a wrongful suspension and that back pay must be awarded as the amount he would have received had he been retained in his job during that period less any amount he might have earned elsewhere holding the relevant event under section 115b06 is when the defendant placed the hazardous substance on the source site holding that a district courts written requirement that a defendant pay 25 per quarter toward restitution if he earned income from a certain source not mentioned at sentencing merely clarified his payment schedule in the event that he earned income from that source holding substantial evidence supported trial courts finding that father voluntarily reduced income without justification because father ran failed business had earned no income for several years before judgment and failed to seek other employment holding that the plaintiff was entitled to back pay for the differential between unemployment compensation received and the salary he would have earned if not terminated