
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen MCKESSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10096.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
    Kyle F. Reardon, Assistant U.S., US-SAC — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen McKesson appeals from the restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the restitution order and remand.

The government contends that McKes-son waived his right to appeal the restitution order. We reject the government’s contention and address the merits of McKesson’s claims. See United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir.2011) (“Because the plea agreement did not set forth the amount of restitution Tsosie would be ordered to pay, or a reasonable and fairly accurate estimate thereof, Tso-sie lacked sufficient notice to waive his right to appeal the restitution award.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

McKesson contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing the $20,000 restitution award, because the amount is not supported by the evidence in the record. We agree that the district court failed to adequately explain how it determined the award amount, and that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the ordered amount by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 1222 (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3664 “requires both that a district court set forth its reasons in resolving a dispute over restitution and that a restitution award ... be adequately supported by evidence in the record.”). Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order, and remand to allow the district court to reassess and explain the amount of restitution. See id. at 1223.

RESTITUTION ORDER VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     