OPINION OF THE COURT

Defendant Vincent Lewis appeals the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; distribution of more than 50 grams of “crack” cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public housing project, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860; and two counts of distribution and aiding and abetting the distribution of more than 50 grams of “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In the plea agreement, defendant acknowledged that, if the United States Probation Officer later determined that he had at least two prior felony convictions involving either crimes of violence or controlled substances, then he would be considered to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, his offense level would be 87, and his criminal history category would be VI, resulting in a sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment.

Because defendant had been convicted of two prior felony controlled substances offenses, the presentence report indicated that a sentence of 360 months to life was appropriate. Defendant did not contest the sentencing guidelines calculation at the sentencing hearing. The District Court imposed the minimum sentence of 360 months imprisonment, 10 years supervised release, and a $400 special assessment.

On appeal, defendant asserts that, prior to sentencing, he submitted a sentencing memorandum to the Court, in which counsel argued that the Court should grant a downward departure because defendant’s career offender status overstated his criminal history and likelihood of recidivism and because defendant suffered from extraordinary physical impairments, ie. end stage kidney disease and HIV. Defendant asserts that it is impossible to discern from the record whether the Court did not rule on his downward departure motion, denied *622 the request after due consideration, or believed it lacked the discretion to depart downward. Accordingly, defendant asserts that this Court should vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

In response, the government explains why the record of the sentencing hearing does not reflect the District Court’s consideration of defendant’s motion for downward departure. The government explains that, although the docket reflects that defendant’s sentencing memorandum had been filed one day before sentencing, neither the District Court nor the government received a copy before sentencing. Because the motion was not received by the government or the Court prior to sentencing and neither the defendant nor his counsel advised the Court during the sentencing hearing that they had filed a downward departure motion, the Court did not consider it in imposing a sentence.

The government agrees that the interests of justice warrants a remand to permit a hearing on defendant’s motion for downward departure. We therefore vacate the judgment of sentence entered in this case and remand the matter for resen-tencing. 1