denied, 484 U.S. 969, 108 S.Ct. 465, 98 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), we allowed a Rule 32 error to be corrected in a postsentencing Rule 35 proceeding. Salas is overruled in light of our holding in this case. 2 . If the district court states that the controverted matters will not be considered in imposing sentence, the sentencing record must unambiguously reflect that the district court placed no reliance on the controverted matters. If the record is ambiguous in this regard, the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentenc-ing. We thus expressly approve of our opinion in Baron, 860 F.2d at 920. 3 . Compare United States v. Serino, 835 F.2d 924, 932 (1st Cir.1987) and United States v. Bradley, 812 F.2d 774, 782 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832, 108 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987) (<HOLDING>) with United States v. Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474,
holding that resentencing is required holding resentencing is not always required holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing