United States of America v. Amando Villareal Heredia, a.k.a. Gordo, a.k.a. Gordo Villareal, a.k.a. Amando…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMANDO VILLAREAL HEREDIA, a.k.a.
Gordo, a.k.a. Gordo Villareal,
a.k.a. Amando Villareal Heredia,
a.k.a. Armando Villareal Heredia,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50202
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03044-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Amando Villareal Heredia appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50202
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we vacate and remand.
Heredia contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782, which increased the quantity of actual methamphetamine
required to trigger the maximum base offense level from 1.5 kilograms to 4.5
kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). He argues that he no longer
qualifies for the maximum level because he admitted to conspiring to distribute
only 1.5 kilograms. Contrary to this contention, the plea agreement reflects that
Heredia admitted to conspiring to distribute “more than 1.5 kilograms of actual
methamphetamine.” The district court did not need to, and did not, make a more
specific quantity determination at sentencing. Under these circumstances, the
district court properly attempted to determine the total drug quantity attributable to
Heredia in order to determine his eligibility for a sentence reduction. See United
States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2017).
Nevertheless, we vacate the district court’s order denying Heredia’s motion and
remand for the court to reconsider its quantity determination in light of Mercado-
Moreno, which was decided after the district court’s decision. While the district
court observed that at least 100 pounds of methamphetamine were seized by
investigators, it did not determine what portion of that quantity, if any, was the
result of Heredia’s direct involvement or reasonably foreseeable to him as within
the scope of the conspiracy in which he participated. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1),

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50202
cmt. n.2 (2014); Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d at 959-60. Upon remand, the court
shall determine whether it is more likely than not that Heredia is responsible for
the new quantity threshold of 4.5 kilograms of actual methamphetamine or 45
kilograms of methamphetamine mixture, see Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d at 957,
and assess Heredia’s eligibility for a sentence reduction accordingly.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Heredia’s remaining claims.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --