United States v. Norma Barrancas-Sanchez, 657 F. App'x 713 (9th Cir. 2016). · Go Syfert
United States v. Norma Barrancas-Sanchez, 657 F. App'x 713 (9th Cir. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Norma Margarita BARRANCAS-SANCHEZ, A.K.A. Norma M. Barrancas-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
14-50249.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 19, 2016.
Unpublished opinion
657 F. App'x 713
Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert C. Sehlein, Robert C Schlein & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Hawkins, Smith, Hurwitz.
Unpublished  |  Criminal

MEMORANDUM **

Norma Margarita Barrancas-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following her 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, and we vacate and remand for resentenc-ing.

Barrancas-Sanchez 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 Barrancas-San-chez 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 clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See id. Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Barrancas-Sanchez’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 Barrancas-Sanchez’s claim that her 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.