Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0945-02.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. Rogelio Umberto COTA-VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Rogelio Cota-Valenzuela, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10091
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    
      Beverly K. Anderson, Esquire, Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rogelio Umberto Cota-Valenzuela, Pro Se.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rogelio Umberto Cotar-Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Cota-Valenzuela contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined that Cota-Valenzuela was not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, rather than the Guidelines range. In so doing, the district court applied the test set forth in United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2012), and did not have the benefit of our recent decision in United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (overruling Austin and adopting the plurality opinion’s approach in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011)). Accordingly, we remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Cota-Valenzuela is entitled to relief in light of Davis. We express no opinion as to the merits of Cota-Valenzuela’s motion.

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