
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik ALTAMIRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50090
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 25, 2015 
    
    Filed September 06, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Peter Ko, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Benjamin Joseph Katz, Special 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

Erik Altamirano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 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.

Altamirano 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 Altamirano 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 Altamirano was entitled to a minor role adjustment, we vacate Altami-rano’s sentence and remand for resentenc-ing 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.
     