United States of America v. Mauro Romero

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAURO ROMERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50029
D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00285-SVW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mauro Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of
methamphetamine and for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-50029
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.
Romero contends that the district court failed to conduct the required
analysis to determine whether he should receive a minor-role adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. After the district court sentenced Romero, we issued our
opinions in United States v. Rodriguez, 44 F.4th 1229, 1234-37 (9th Cir. 2022)
(explaining how to interpret and apply the five factors enumerated in the
commentary to § 3B1.2), and United States v. Dominguez-Caicedo, 40 F.4th 938,
960 (9th Cir. 2022) (describing three-step process district courts must follow to
determine if a defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant
in the offense), cert. denied sub nom. Chichande v. United States, No. 22-6409,
2023 WL 3937636 (U.S. June 12, 2023), and cert. denied, No. 22-6461, 2023 WL
3937638 (U.S. June 12, 2023). The district court did not have the benefit of these
decisions, which clarified how district courts should perform the minor role
analysis, when it sentenced Romero. Thus, we vacate the judgment and remand
for the district court to reconsider Romero’s request for a minor-role reduction
under the standards set forth in those opinions.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Romero’s remaining contentions.
We express no opinion as to whether Romero should receive a minor-role
adjustment or a different sentence on remand.
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

-- 2 of 2 --