NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANGEL SALINAS-MANDUJANO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50140 

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01656-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges. 

Angel Salinas-Mandujano appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 96-month custodial sentence and $500 fine 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. We affirm 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-50140 

in part and vacate and remand for resentencing in part.

Salinas-Mandujano contends 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 SalinasMandujano 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).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a 

minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other participants in 

the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. See U.S.S.G. App. C. 

Amend. 794; Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the Amendment 

clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role 

in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) 

(2015). Finally, 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 we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed 

the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the 

now-relevant factors, we vacate Salinas-Mandujano’s sentence and remand for 

resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

Salinas-Mandujano also contends that the district court erred in concluding 
3 15-50140 

that he was subject to the 20-year statutory maximum sentence when he never 

admitted, and the government did not prove, that he knew the type and quantity of 

the drugs he smuggled. As Salinas-Mandujano concedes, this argument is 

foreclosed by United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015). We 

decline to reach Salinas-Mandujano’s remaining challenges to his custodial 

sentence.

Salinas-Mandujano also contends that the district court erred by imposing a 

$500 fine without considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) and 

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d). Contrary to Salinas-Mandujano’s assertions, the district court 

was not required to list all of the factors it considered, and the record establishes 

that the district court considered Salinas-Mandujano’s ability to pay the fine. See 

United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other 

grounds by United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2017)

(en banc). Moreover, the below-Guidelines fine is substantively reasonable in light 

of the section 3572(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing in 

part.