
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Marcos ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50390
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Rosario Torres Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marc Scott Levinson, The Law Offices of Marc S. Levinson, 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

Jose Marcos Alonzo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges' the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and 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.

Alonzo contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.C. § 3B 1.2(b). After Alonzo 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 determine from the record whether the district court considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Alonzo’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 Alonzo’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

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.
     