[Redacted]

The Court of Appeals on March 26 issued a ruling that tells us very little about why the defendant is entitled to a re-sentencing. In fact, it tells us nothing.

The case is United States v. Watkins. Here is the text of the ruling:

Emory Watkins appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J.), sentencing him to a three-year term of imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery and a consecutive five-year term of imprisonment for a related firearms offense. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

[REDACTED.]

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby VACATE the sentence in Count Two and REMAND FOR RESENTENCING consistent with this summary order.

There you have it. The analysis is literally redacted. An unredacted version of the opinion was presumably sent to Watkins' lawyer.