
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus JERONIMO-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50030
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 03, 2016
    Emily P. Reuter, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA.
    Patrick Q. Hall, Law Offices of Patrick Q. Hall, San Diego, CA.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Jeronimo-Carrillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-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, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Jeronimo-Carrillo 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 Jeronimo-Car-rillo 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, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. See U.S.S.G. App. C. Amend. 794; Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523. In addition, 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). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See id. Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Jeronimo-Carrillo’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Jeronimo-Carrillo’s other sentencing argument.

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.
     