Case Information
*1 Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Fidel Rios, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel to pursue a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
*2 Rios contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The district court determined that Rios was not eligible for a sentence reduction, and denied his motion to appoint counsel, because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, rather than a Guidelines range that has been lowered by Amendment 782. The district court did not have the benefit of our decision in United States v. Davis , 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), which was decided while Rios’s appeal was pending. Applying Davis , we conclude that Rios is eligible for a sentence reduction.
Rios’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement required the district court to determine Rios’s applicable Guidelines range at the time of sentencing, stipulated to a drug quantity and corresponding base offense level, and provided that Rios was eligible for a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Furthermore, the sentencing court’s statement of reasons shows that the court calculated a Guidelines range of 78-97 months, noted that Rios’s 75-month sentence was below-Guidelines, and found that sentence appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Thus, as in Davis , we conclude that Rios’s sentence was based on the Guidelines and that he is eligible for a sentence reduction. See id . at 1027-28. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district *3 court to appoint counsel and “consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
In light of this disposition, we decline to consider Rios’s remaining claims of error.
VACATED and REMANDED.
[*] 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).