
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando Betancourt MENDOZA, a.k.a. Jorge Mendoza Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Alexander C. Ekstrom, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public .Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Armando Betancourt Mendoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 2; and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Betancourt Mendoza contends that the government erred by failing to move for a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Effective November 1, 2013, section 3E1.1 was amended to clarify that “[t]he government should not withhold [a motion for reduction for acceptance of responsibility] based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 6. The government concedes, and we agree, that Betanc-ourt Mendoza is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in light of this amendment. See United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, No. 12-30233, 756 F.3d 1125, 1127, 2014 WL 998173, at *1 n. 1 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014). Accordingly, we vacate Betancourt Mendoza’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing.

In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Betancourt Mendoza’s other claims of sentencing error.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     