Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michel MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-10131
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rafael Malanga, Attorney, Malanga Law Office, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michel Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

There was no dispute in the district court that, because Amendment 782 lowered Martinez’s Guidelines range, he was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction. The court declined to grant a reduction, however, “[a]fter reviewing the facts of this case.” It provided no further explanation. Martinez contends that this explanation was inadequate. We agree that greater elaboration was required. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009-1011 (9th Cir. 2013).

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