Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michel MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 708 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 17-10131
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michel MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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 provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.