Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Gossett appeals the district coiut’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to five months in prison, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Gossett argues that the district court’s orally pronounced sentence conflicts with the written judgment.
Where a conflict exists between an orally pronounced sentence and the written judgment, the oral sentence controls. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(c) (“ ‘[Sentencing’ means the oral announcement of the sentence.”); United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 283 n. 1 (4th Cir.2003). The record establishes that the district court imposed a five-month active prison term to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release, in its oral pronouncement of the sentence. This is precisely the sentence recited in the written judgment. Thus, there is simply no conflict between the sentence imposed in open court and the sentence reflected in the written judgment. Nor do we find the oral pronouncement of sentence ambiguous or unclear. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.