portion of the district court’s written judgment ordering as a special condition of supervised release that “upon completion of his term of imprisonment, the defendant is to be surrendered to a duly-authorized immigration official for deportation.” The district court did not mention this provision at the sentencing hearing, and the Government concedes that it conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. We agree. The condition imposed is not listed in the sentencing guidelines as a standard or mandatory condition of supervised release, and it is not among the conditions recommended by the Sentencing Commission insofar as the record does not support its application here. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c) & (d)(6); see also United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The written judgment improperly conflicts
holding that a conflict with oral pronouncement is not creat ed by including conditions that are standard mandatory or recommended by the sentencing commission holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement holding that when there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written memorialization of the sentence the oral pronouncement controls holding that imposition occurs at time of oral pronouncement