
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Patrick CORRIGAN, also known as Pat Corrigan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-1152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 21, 2015.
    Michelle M. Heldmyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Grand Junction, CO, Robert Mark Russel, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lynn C. Hartfield, Lynn C. Hartfield Law Offices, Denver, CO, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Michael Patrick Corrigan is currently serving a 56-month sentence after pleading guilty to four counts, of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mr. Corrigan appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence, claiming that the district court failed to make a clear and independent ruling as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) on the disputed issue of the amount of loss attributable to Mr. Corri-gan’s fraud. The government agrees and also asks us to remand to the district court for resentencing. After a careful review of the record, we agree there was not a “clear and independent ruling by the district court on [this] critical disputed fact” and remand is necessary. United States v. Williams, 374 F.3d 941, 947 (10th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Schmidt, 244 FedAppx. 902, 906-07 (10th Cir.2007) (finding the district court accepted the pre-sentence investigation report’s findings on the disputed issue of loss amount without independent inquiry and remanding for re-sentencing).

Accordingly, exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 3742(a), we REMAND for further proceedings, with instructions to vacate the sentence and resentence in accordance with this order and judgment. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for. its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     