From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Maxson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 1, 2016
No. 15-50188 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-50188

11-01-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANA MAXSON, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02881-JLS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Juana Maxson appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 51-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 resentencing.

Maxson 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 Maxson 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 Maxson's sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.


Summaries of

United States v. Maxson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 1, 2016
No. 15-50188 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Maxson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANA MAXSON…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 1, 2016

Citations

No. 15-50188 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)