
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Randy S. PERSAD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-3130-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 17, 2015.
    Jeffrey C. Coffman and Rajit S. Do-sanjh, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for Appellee.
    Molly Corbett, for Lisa Peebles, Federal Public Defender, Albany, NY, for Appellant.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, CHESTER J. STRAUB and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Randy S. Persad (“Persad”) appeals the August 4, 2014 judgment of the district court sentencing him principally to 48 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the indeterminate Vermont state sentence which Persad was then serving. Persad also moves to supplement the record on appeal with certain documents, including letters from Vermont corrections officials explaining how federal and state sentences interact in the Vermont corrections system. Persad argues primarily that the district court did not intend the federal sentence to have the effect of extending Persad’s state sentence to the maximum term of fourteen years, and that the letters from Vermont corrections officials demonstrate that the imposition of a consecutive federal term of imprisonment will have that unintended effect. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We believe that Persad is correct in stating that the district court did not intend its federal sentence to extend the term of Persad’s Vermont sentence. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel told the court that, under Vermont correctional practices, imposition of a consecutive federal sentence would require Persad to serve the fourteen-year maximum term of his five-to-fourteen-year state sentence. The district court replied that it had “no intentions that Mr. Persad, based upon his conduct, should serve twenty years ... rounding up,” but that it would not “take Mr. Persad’s word about the way in which the Vermont sentence works.” App. 72-78. The district court explained further that it “would be happy to reconsider the sentence ... imposed,” “[i]f somebody established] that” the Vermont corrections system works in the way described. Id. at 73. Defense counsel has now procured letters from Vermont corrections officials that purport to establish just that, and Persad has filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with these letters. The government, however, disputes that these letters say what Persad claims, and argues that Vermont statutes and regulations point to the conclusion that Persad’s federal sentence will have no effect on the duration of his Vermont prison term.

It would not be appropriate for us to grant Persad’s motion to supplement the record with these letters, see Fed. R.App. P. 10(e)(2) (record may be supplemented only with materials “omitted from ... the record by error or accident”), and neither would it be proper for us to take judicial notice of their contents, see Pina v. Henderson, 752 F.2d 47, 50 (2d Cir.1985) (“A court should not” take judicial notice of a fact “that is an essential part of a party’s case unless the fact is clearly beyond dispute.”). We therefore deny Per-sad’s motion to supplement the record and to take judicial notice.

We express no opinion regarding the accuracy of the letters’ statements of Vermont corrections practices; the effect of Persad’s consecutive federal sentence on his Vermont term of imprisonment is a question that we decline to consider in the first instance, and which may require further fact-finding. We therefore remand in accordance with the procedures of United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994), for the district court to address the disputed issue of Vermont law and practice in the first instance, and to conduct any further fact-finding that may be required. The district court may also conduct such further sentencing proceedings as it deems appropriate.

For the reasons stated above, we DENY Persad’s motion to supplement the record and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this order. Upon the conclusion of the proceedings before the district court, either party may restore jurisdiction to this Court by filing with the Clerk within fourteen days of the district court decision a letter (along with a copy of the relevant order or transcript) advising the Clerk that jurisdiction should be restored. In the interest of judicial economy, the renewed appeal will be assigned to this panel. ■  