United States of America v. Jeremiah Clay Preston

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMIAH CLAY PRESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30020
D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00121-SEH-2
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
SEP 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.

-- 2 of 2 --