
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Andres MACIAS-SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50053
    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
    Elizabeth Nguyen Behnke, Attorney, Behnke Law Corporation, 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

Oscar Andres Macias-Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for resentencing.

Macias-Sandoval argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. After Macias-Sandoval 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 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 Macias-Sandoval’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Macias-Sandoval’s claim 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.
     