defendant “ ‘register as a sex offender under state law if required to do so’ ” because “it is axiomatic that a district court can include as a condition that the defendant obey the law”). Our decision does not foreclose an as-applied challenge in some later proceeding should the district court revoke Defendant’s release and should Defendant seek to challenge whether he was subject to the particular registration law at issue. In this appeal, though, the question whether Defendant must in fact register under federal or state law is not ripe for decision. AFFIRMED. 1 . Defendant expresses concern that the district court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing varies from its written pronouncement, quoted in text. Cf. United States v. Bergmann, 836 F.2d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). We see no direct conflict. In context, it is
holding that courts written sentence must conform to oral pronouncement holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls