United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eighth Circuit
                    ___________________________

                            No. 21-2295
                    ___________________________

                         United States of America

                    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                       v.

                      Patrelle Jose Green-Bowman

                  lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                              ____________

                       Submitted: October 14, 2021
                         Filed: October 19, 2021
                              [Unpublished]
                             ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Patrelle Jose Green-Bowman appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed
after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has
filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.

       After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 

,
915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The record reflects the court sufficiently
considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant
factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear
error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United
States v. Keating, 

, 893 (8th Cir. 2009). The sentence was below the
statutory limits and within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines policy statement
range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h); USSG § 7B1.4(a); United States v.
Perkins, 

, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008).

       The written judgment conflicts, in part, with the district court’s oral findings
at the revocation hearing. The oral pronouncement “prevails.” United States v.
Raftis, 

, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970). A remand is unnecessary “where the
written judgment contains apparent clerical errors and the district court’s intent is
clear from the record.” United States v. Jacobs, 

, 577-78 (8th Cir.
2013). As the record on appeal makes the court’s intent clear, we modify the written
judgment in part to reflect that Green-Bowman admitted guilt to violations 5(a)-(f),
that he was found to have committed violations of 5(g)-(h), that he was found not to
be in violation of 3, and that the court did not make a finding regarding violation 4.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. We affirm the judgment as so modified and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________


      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

                                          -2-