OPINION

This is an appeal by defendant Luis Fuentes from an order revoking his supervised release. Fuentes argues that the order should be revoked and the consequent sentence be revisited because the District Court erred in failing to recognize its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence for a violation of supervised release under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 7B1.3(f). In response, the government states (in its brief) that

[i]t is unclear from the record whether the district court[,] in imposing a sentence for a violation of supervised release which was consecutive to a term for the offense which gave rise to the violation, understood its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. This, this Court may wish to remand the matter for clarification of the District Court’s reasoning.

Appellee’s Brief at 7.

The government then argues, however, that: (1) the sentence for violation of supervised release may be affirmed on the present record because Fuentes did not object at sentencing to the imposition of a consecutive sentence; (2) review is therefore for plain error; (3) there was none; and (4) this Court has discretion whether to correct the error. However, we think that the better course is to remand for clarification. Accordingly the judgment of *396 sentence will be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.