Does the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement of the offense level 43 control?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . " In July 5,2017, Alejandro Casillas Prieto (Movant) file a motion with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, for a reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) and Amendment-782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The United States (Appellee) replied in opposition to the reduction stating, "Although Amendment-782 reduced the guideline range applicable in many cases involving crack cocaine, it did not change the base offense level applicable in this case." "When combined with the other guideline applications, the defendant's guide. range at the original sentencing was LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Applying the revised guidelines with the other guideline applications made at the original sentencing result in a final offense level of 43 under the revised guidelines. At the established criminal history category of I, this results in a sentencing range of Life Imprisonment, the same as applied at the defendant's original sentence." (See Doc. 604). The district court entered a final order on August 30,2017 denying Movant's motion. Movant then file a notice ofappeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where court affirmed the district court's order; ; 1) Does the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement of the offense level 43 control? 2) Is the sentencing judge require to give notice, to Chapter 5, Part A, Commentary Note 2 of the U.S.S.G, when the Guideline. range is above level 43 to defendants? 3) Is Commentary Note 2, of Chapter 5, Part A of the U.S.S.G vague as it does not give notice to its advisory or mandatory nature? 2