
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Josue GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50267
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lara Stingley, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Vincent James Brunkow, Lauren Clark, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adrian Josué Gutierrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for resentencing.

Gutierrez argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Gutierrez was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). The Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(c) (2015). In addition, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. Id. Because it appears that the district court denied the minor role adjustment based on Gutierrez’s essential role in the offense and did not consider all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Gutierrez’s sentence and remand for resentenc-ing. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

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.
     