
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus MORA-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40221
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 16, 2014.
    John Richard Berry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

We previously affirmed Jesus MoraFernandez’s sentence because his challenge to the denial of an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) was foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 377-78 (5th Cir.2008). United States v. Mora-Fernandez, 548 Fed.Appx. 165,166-67 (5th Cir.2013). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed on April 8, 2014.” Tax-Garcia v. United States, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2291, 2292, 189 L.Ed.2d 169 (2014).

Amendment 775 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective on November 1, 2013, provides that the Government should not withhold the additional one-level reduction under Section 3El.l(b) based on interests not identified in that Guideline, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 775, at 43 (2013). We applied Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal where the error was preserved and the Government conceded error. United States v. Palacios, 756 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2014). We also noted that before that opinion was released, all judges on the court were consulted and agreed that if Newson could be interpreted as preventing us from applying Amendment 775 to cases pending on direct appeal, Amendment 775 had abrogated that conclusion. Id. at 326 n. 1. We apply that same reasoning here.

We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for resentencing. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     