SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Raddy Breton, who pleaded guilty to attempted possession of methy-lone with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(C), appeals from the supervised release component of his sentence, A separate pro se brief challenges the validity of his plea. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

1. Breton argues—and the government agrees—that the district court committed plain error by calculating his Guidelines range for the term of supervised release to be three years to life. Taking into proper account U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2 and the safety valve relief available under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the correct Guidelines range for Breton’s supervised release term is one to three years. 1 See U.S.S.G, § 5D1.2(a)(2). The miscalculation of the Guidelines range was plain error. Molina-Martinez v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1349, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016) (observing that “a defendant sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines range should be able to rely on that fact to show a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a different sentence under the correct range” and that “[t]hat probability is all that is needed to establish an effect on substantial rights”); United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir. 2010) (“If the district court miscalculates the typical sentence at the outset, it cannot properly account for atypical factors and we, in turn, cannot be sure that the court has adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors. That is what happened here, and constitutes procedural error.”). 2 Accordingly, we vacate Breton’s five-year term of supervised release and remand for resentencing solely as to this component of the sentence. 3

*110 2. Breton argues in his pro se brief that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was based on his assumption that the district court would calculate his Guidelines sentencing range by using a 200:1 methylone-to-marijuana equivalency (instead of the 500:1 ratio it actually used). However, no promise was made to him regarding the drug ratio that would be used, and he acknowledged at his plea hearing that no one could make any promise as to what sentence he would receive. He was informed that his sentence would be determined by the district court, which was not bound by the plea agreement, and he agreed to waive his right to appeal any prison sentence of 97 months or less “without regard to the sentencing analysis used by the [District] Court.” 4 Plea Agreement ¶ 4. Thus, the record presents no basis for challenging the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea.

Accordingly, the sentence of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.