
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50256
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Alicia Phillip Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 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

Elizabeth Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for resen-tencing.

Soto argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Soto 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 her 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 added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a coúrt “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Because the record reflects that the court may have improperly compared Soto to the average drug courier, and may not have considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Soto’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 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,
     