
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Evelio A. CARMONA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-3468-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 22, 2015.
    Lee A. Ginsberg, Freeman, Nooter & Ginsberg, New York, NY, for Evelio A. Carmona.
    Amy Busa, Tiana A. Demás, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for United States of America.
    Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the cause is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the District Court to determine the term of supervised release allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(l), adjust the sentence as it deems appropriate, and articulate the reasons for its sentence.

Defendant Evelio A. Carmona appeals from the District Court’s September 10, 2013 judgment convicting him, after a guilty plea, of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm after having been convicted of three prior violent felonies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e)(1), and sentencing him principally to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Carmona challenges only the term of supervised release on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review criminal sentences for “reasonableness” under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Gavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187-88 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). A sentence is proeeduraUy unreasonable if the district court “fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Chu, 714 F.3d 742, 746 (2d Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Carmona argues, and the Government agrees, that the cause should be remanded for resentencing because the Presentence Investigation Report erroneously stated that five years is the minimum term of supervised release for Carmona’s offense when, in fact, five years is the maximum term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1). Although not entirely clear from the record, it appears that the District Court relied on this erroneous statement of the law in sentencing Carmona. Accordingly, a limited remand is appropriate for the District Court to determine the term of supervised release allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(l), adjust the sentence as it deems appropriate, and articulate the reasons for its sentence.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we REMAND the cause for the limited purpose of allowing the District Court to determine the term of supervised release allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(l), adjust the sentence as it deems appropriate, and articulate the reasons for its sentence.  