22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T511,MEMORANDUM In these consolidated appeals, Jose Vallejo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . He also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Vallejo contends that the judgment and commitment order, which imposed a 57-month term of imprisonment, conflicts with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Contrary to Vallejo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court orally imposed a 57-month sentence. Moreover, even if the oral pronouncement were ambiguous, the district court did not err in denying Vallejo’s motion to correct the judgment. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir.1994) (“[T]he written sentence will control where there are ambiguities in the oral pronouncement of the sentence, and the writing resolves the ambiguity.”), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir.1999). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53e,

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Jose Vallejo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . He also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the judgment and commitment order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Vallejo contends that the judgment and commitment order, which imposed a 57-month term of imprisonment, conflicts with the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Contrary to Vallejo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court orally imposed a 57-month sentence. Moreover, even if the oral pronouncement were ambiguous, the district court did not err in denying Vallejo’s motion to correct the judgment. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir.1994) (“[T]he written sentence will control where there are ambiguities in the oral pronouncement of the sentence, and the writing resolves the ambiguity.”), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.