
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul L. WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Friday, a.k.a. Garfield, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10339
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 1, 2017
    Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Philip Kimble, Law Office of P Kimble, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul L. Williams appeals from 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 and remand.

Williams contends that the district court erred in concluding that he did not “qualify” for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We agree that the court’s statement that Williams did not “qualify” for a reduction is ambiguous as to whether the court believed that Williams was ineligible for a reduction or was not deserving of one. Furthermore, assuming the court concluded that Williams was not deserving of a reduction, the record contains no explanation for why it reached that conclusion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order.

The record reflects that Williams is statutorily eligible for a reduction because his Guidelines range was lowered to 78-97 months under Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, on remand the district court shall determine whether it will exercise its discretion to lower Williams’s sentence and explain its decision. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2013).

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     