United States v. Charu Adams

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50233

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00370-LAB

v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARU BRAZIL ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Charu Brazil Adams appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We

*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for

resentencing.

Adams contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role

reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Adams 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 Adams’s sentence and

2 15-50233
remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at

523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

3 15-50233