SUMMARY ORDER

All parties agree, and this Court’s inspection confirms, that, when the District Court imposed a five-year term of supervised release as part of Defendant’s sentence, it appears to have been under the impression that Defendant was to be sentenced consistent with a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1), which requires a term of supervised release of “at least 5 years.” Defendant, however, was to have been sentenced consistent with a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3), which only requires imposing a term of supervised release of “a least 3 years.” It is necessary, therefore, to remand Defendant’s case to the District Court so it may ensure that Defendant is sentenced consistent with 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3), see United States v. Doe, 297 F.3d 76, 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (remanding “for resentencing under 21 *32 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3)”), and, if the District Court intended to impose a five-year term of supervised release, so it may also set forth the reasons for the term imposed, see United States v. Stevens, 66 F.3d 431, 438 (2d Cir. 1995). 1

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the District Court to consider whether, knowing that Defendant was to be sentenced consistent with a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3), it would nevertheless have sentenced Defendant to a five-year term of supervised release and, if so, to explain the reasons for the term imposed. Alternatively, if the District Court would have sentenced Defendant to a lesser term of supervised release, the court shall vacate the term of supervised release imposed and resentence Defendant to a different term of supervised release consistent with the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3).