United States of America v. Jaime Becerra-Pulido

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME BECERRA-PULIDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50385
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00484-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Becerra-Pulido appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and
remand.
Becerra-Pulido contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role
reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.C. § 3B1.2(b). After Becerra-
Pulido 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 him 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 Becerra-Pulido’s sentence
15-50385 2

-- 2 of 3 --

and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d
at 523-24.
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
15-50385 3

-- 3 of 3 --