Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. San Juan HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 945
Docket Number: No. 16-10003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. San Juan HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 945–945

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. San Juan HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10003
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 21, 2016
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Serra Marie Tsethlikai, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Mark F. Willimann, The Law Office of Mark F. Willimann, LLC, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
San Juan Hernandez appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Hernandez 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 hot address or explain its rejection of the arguments presented in either Hernandez's motion for a sentence reduction or probation's recommendation that the district court grant a sentence reduction. 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.