Defendant-Appellant Makeysha Dion Isaac, presents arguments that she concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Shabazz, 633 F.3d 342, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2011), which held that the phrase “on any such revocation” in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) does not impose an aggregate limit on imprisonment for revocation of supervised release but limits only the amount of imprisonment that may be imposed each time a court revokes a defendant’s supervised release. She raises the arguments solely to preserve them for further review. The government has moved for summary affirmance.

We grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance and deny the government’s alternative motions to dismiss the appeal or for an extension of time to file a brief. However, the written revocation order in this case reflects a revocation sentence of 18 months, which conflicts with the oral pronouncement of a sentence of 12 months. Accordingly, we “remand to the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence.” United States v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir.2006). We affirm in all other respects.

REMANDED FOR AMENDMENT OF REVOCATION ORDER AND AFFIRMED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIR-MANCE GRANTED EXCEPT AS TO MATTER REMANDED; MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED.