22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d9,MEMORANDUM ** Hector Mendez-Navarro appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate the sentence and remand. *542 Mendez-Navarro contends that the district court erred when it determined that the application of the safety valve provision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f), was discretionary, and by failing to articulate sufficient reasons for denying safety valve relief. Because the district court’s safety valve determination was based, at least in part, on a misapprehension of the continuing mandatory nature of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we remand for resentencing. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1109 (9th Cir.2007). Because we remand, we need not reach the parties’ additional contentions regarding whether Mendez-Navarro was eligible for safety valve relief. VACATED and REMANDED for RE-SENTENCING. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f4,

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Mendez-Navarro appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate the sentence and remand.

*542 Mendez-Navarro contends that the district court erred when it determined that the application of the safety valve provision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f), was discretionary, and by failing to articulate sufficient reasons for denying safety valve relief. Because the district court’s safety valve determination was based, at least in part, on a misapprehension of the continuing mandatory nature of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we remand for resentencing. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1109 (9th Cir.2007). Because we remand, we need not reach the parties’ additional contentions regarding whether Mendez-Navarro was eligible for safety valve relief.

VACATED and REMANDED for RE-SENTENCING.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.