United States v. Jeremiah Preston

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.