Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0728-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario GONZALEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50250
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015 
    
    Filed August 25, 2016
    Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA.
    Roxana Sandoval, Vincent James Brun-kow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Candelario Gonzalez-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Gonzalez-Gareia argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Gonzalez-Gareia was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

Among other things, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors 'that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court considered all of those factors in determining whether Gonzalez-Gareia was entitled to a minor role adjustment, we vacate Gonzalez-Garcia’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.