Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoinette VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 689 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 16-50035
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoinette VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoinette VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 20, 2017
Patrick Hovakimian, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Barbara M. Donovan, Donovan & Donovan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antoinette Valenzuela appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 78-month concurrent sentences imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine and importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.
Valenzuela contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because, among other things, the court failed to apply Amendment 794 ("the Amendment"), which added a non-exhaustive list of five factors that a court "should consider" in determining whether to grant a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). The Amendment became effective less than two months before Valenzuela was sentenced. Valenzuela did not discuss the five factors in her sentencing memorandum, and made only indirect reference to some of the factors at sentencing. Moreover, the court did not explicitly discuss the five factors. On this record, we cannot determine whether the district court considered all of the now-relevant factors in determining whether Valenzuela was entitled to a minor role reduction. Accordingly, we vacate Valenzuela's sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523-24 (9th Cir. 2016).
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.