USA V. JEREMIAH PRESTON, No. 15-30020 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 09 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-30020 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.