Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0681-01.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. Martin ARRIOLA-OREGEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50424
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Ajay Krishnamurthy, Timothy D. Coughlin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Robert H. Rexrode, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. F. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Arriola-Oregel appeals from th'e district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Arriola-Oregel argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base level offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Arriola-Oregel 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 id. Because the Amendment was not yet in effect, the district court did not consider those factors. Accordingly, we vacate Arriola-Oregel’s sentence and remand for resentencing 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.