
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Muanuel COTA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50407
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 25, 2015 
    
    Filed September 06, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is • suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Muanuel Cota-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, 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.

Cotar-Chavez argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). After Cota-Chavez 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).

Among other things, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Because we cannot definitively determine from the record whether the district court considered all of those factors in determining whether Cota-Chavez was entitled to a minor role adjustment, we vacate Cota-Chavez’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing under the Amendment. 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.
     