*1 Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

To the extent a plea agreement is capable of more than one interpretation, we “constru[e] any ambiguities in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Heredia , 768 F.3d 1220, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the government breached paragraph 30 of the plea agreement because it argued for the higher drug quantity, *2 at several points, thereby encouraging the court to impose a higher sentence. In light of this breach, “we must remand this matter to a different judge, although in doing so we ‘intend no criticism of the district judge by this action, and none should be inferred.’” United States v. Whitney , 673 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Johnson , 187 F.3d 1129, 1136 n.7 (9th Cir. 1999)).

A minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available if the defendant was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. United States v. Cantrell , 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court failed to compare Myers’s conduct to that of his co-conspirators. That was error and, on remand, the district court shall reconsider Myers’s eligibility for a mitigating role reduction.

We vacate Myers’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing before a different district court judge.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.