N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE ISR

AEL LOPEZ-DIAZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50050

D.C . No. 3:13-C R -02734-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, C ALLAHAN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r ple a ding guilty

to im porta tion of m e t

ham phe tam ine in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a

nd 960, JoseIsra e l Lope z -Dia z a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m inor role re duc tion a

t se nte n c ing. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED M AY17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.§ 1291, a

nd we re ve rse and re m and for re -se nte nc ing in light of ne wly am e nde d U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2. 1 W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte nc ing Guide line s de novo a nd the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings for c le a r e rror. Unite d

State s v . Hornbuc k

le , 784 F.3d 549, 553 (9th C ir. 2015). W e have pre viously note d a n intra c i rc uit c onflic t a s to whe the r the sta nda rd of re vie w for a

pplic ation of the Guide line s to the fa c ts is denovo or a buse of disc re tion. Id. W e ne e d not re solve that c onflic t he re be c a

use “ the c hoic e of sta

nda rd . . . doe s not a ffe c t the outc om e of this c a se .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). In Nove m be r 2015, a

pproxim ate ly

two y e ars a fte r Lope z -Dia z wa s se nte nc e d, the Unite d

State s Se nte nc ing C o m

m ission publishe d

Am e ndm e nt 794 (the Am e ndm e nt) a fte r finding tha t the m inor role re duc tion wa s be ing “ a pplie d inc o nsiste ntly

and m ore spa

ringly tha n the C om

m ission intende d .” U.S.S.G. App. C . Am e nd. 794. Among othe r c ha nge s, the Am e ndm e nt a dde d a non-e xha u stive list of fa c tors a

c ourt “ should c o nside r” in de te rm ining whe the r to a pply a m inor role re duc tion. Se eU.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2, c om m e nt., n.1(c ).

1 Lope z -Dia z a l so a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

57-m onth se nte nc e a s substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . B e c a use we re m a

n d for re -se nte nc ing, we do not re a c h this issue . 2The Am e ndm e nt a pplie s re troa c tive ly

in dire c t a

p pe a ls. Se e Unite d State

s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , – F.3d – (9th C ir. 2016). B e c a u se we c annot de te rm ine from the re c o rd whe the r the distric t c ourt c onside re d a ll thefa c tors now liste d in § 3B 1.2 whe n se nte nc ing Lope z -Dia z , we va c ate the se nte nc e and re ve rse and re m and for re -se nte n c ing in light of ne wly am e nde d § 3B 1 .2. On re m and, the distric t c ourt

“ should c onside r” the fa c tors ide ntifie d in Am e ndm e nt 794: (i) the de g re e to whic h the d e fe nda

nt unde rstood thesc ope and struc ture of the c rim ina l a c tivity ; (ii) the de gre e to whic h the de fe nda nt pa rtic ipate d in pla

nning or orga

niz ing thec rim ina l a c tivity ; (iii) thede gre e to whic h the de fe nda nt e xe rc ise d

de c ision-m a

k ing a uthority or influe nc e d the e xe rc ise of de c i sion-m aking a uthority ; (iv) the nature and e xte nt of thede fe nda nt's pa rtic ipation in the

c om m ission of the

c rim ina l a c tivity , inc luding thea c ts the de fe nda nt pe rform e d a

nd the re sponsibility

and disc re tion thede fe nda

nt ha d in pe rform ing thosea c ts; a nd (v) the de gre e to whic h the d e fe nda

nt stood to be

ne fit from the c rim ina l a c tivity . RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3