USA V. JOSE ALONZO, No. 15-50390 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 21 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50390 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03254-BEN MEMORANDUM* v. JOSE MARCOS ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Marcos Alonzo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and 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. * 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). Alonzo 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 Alonzo 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). Among other things, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court considered all of the nowrelevant factors, we vacate Alonzo’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 Alonzo’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 2 15-50390

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.