Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0938-01.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. Mario GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Payaso, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10537
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Mary Sue Feldmeier, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Keith J. Hilzendeger, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ—Federal Public Defenders Office (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, Eric Dennis Marsteller, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Tucson), Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Gonzalez appeals from 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 and remand.

Gonzalez contends that the district court failed to explain adequately its denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We agree. The district court’s order does not address or explain its rejection of the arguments presented in the parties’ joint stipulation for a reduction of sentence. Accordingly, we vacate and remand. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court must provide some explanation for rejecting a defendant’s non-frivolous arguments).

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