
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo LONGORIA-CHAPA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40654
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raymundo Longoria-Chapa appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of, inter alia, 57 months’ imprisonment.

Longoria contends the district court reversibly erred by failing to award him an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 3El.l(b). As this court held recently in United States v. Palacios, 756 F.3d 325, 325 (5th Cir.2014), the amended version of § 3E1.1 is applicable in a case such as this one, where the amendment was proposed at the time of sentencing and went into effect while the appeal was pending. Pursuant to the amended § 3E1.1, the Government may not withhold, as it did in this case, a § 3El.l(b) motion because the defendant refuses to waive his right to appeal. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 6 (“The [Government should not withhold [a motion for additional level decrease] based on ... whether the defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal”.).

In addition, the Government has not shown this procedural error was harmless as to the imposed sentence. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir.2009) (requiring evidence “that the district court had a particular sentence in mind and would have imposed it” in spite of the error in calculating the Guidelines sentencing range).

VACATED and REMANDED to district court for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     