Court Opinion

ID: 2903266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-09 20:01:00.007323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:38.615521
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                           FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            SEP 09 2015
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-30020

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00121-SEH-2

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JEREMIAH CLAY PRESTON,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                     Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 31, 2015**
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: GOODWIN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Jeremiah Clay Preston appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1008 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013). We vacate and remand.

      Preston moved for a reduction of sentence because his sentence was above

the amended Sentencing Guidelines range, presenting nonfrivolous arguments

based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the district court

failed to explain its reasons for rejecting Preston’s arguments, we vacate the order

and remand for further proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (the district court

may “reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in

section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission”); Trujillo, 713 F.3d at 1009 (“The district court’s duty to consider

the § 3553(a) factors necessarily entails a duty to provide a sufficient explanation

of the sentencing decision to permit meaningful appellate review.”); United States

v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[W]hen a party raises a

specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a relevant § 3553(a) factor . . . , then

the judge should normally explain why he accepts or rejects the party’s position.”).

      The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

      VACATED and REMANDED.