context: Summers contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G SS 3B1.2 because the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the sentencing guidelines. We conclude that the district court, not having the benefit of our decision in Rojas-Millan, erroneously limited the scope of its evaluation of Summers' role in the offense, and accordingly vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 13 F.3d 1381, 1386
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that the district court must determine whether defendant's role and culpability in larger context of his offense were sufficiently minor or minimal compared to other participants
citation_a.sentence: Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d at 473-474 (concluding that defendant’s culpability should be evaluated relative to all participants in a criminal scheme); see also United States v. Demers, 13 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1994) (concluding that the district court must determine whether defendant’s role and culpability in larger context of his offense were sufficiently minor or minimal compared to other participants).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 234 F.3d 473, 473-474
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that defendant's culpability should be evaluated relative to all participants in a criminal scheme
citation_b.sentence: Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d at 473-474 (concluding that defendant’s culpability should be evaluated relative to all participants in a criminal scheme); see also United States v. Demers, 13 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1994) (concluding that the district court must determine whether defendant’s role and culpability in larger context of his offense were sufficiently minor or minimal compared to other participants).