
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nidia Berenice FIGUEROA-ZENDEJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rafael Malanga, Malanga Law Office, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nidia Berenice Figueroa-Zendejas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(vii). We. have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Figueroa-Zendejas contends that the district court committed reversible error by miscalculating the advisory Guidelines range. We review for plain error. See United States v. Vargem, 747 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir.2014). The government concedes the Guidelines calculation error, but contends that Figueroa-Zendejas has not shown that the district court’s error was prejudicial. We disagree. Because the district court may have imposed a different sentence had it started its analysis with the correct Guidelines range, we conclude that the court’s error affected Figueroa-Zendejas’s substantial rights. See id. at 728-29. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Figueroa-Zendejas’s other allegations of sentencing error.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

LEAVY, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because the error is not one that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     