
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. San Juan HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10003
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Serra Marie Tsethlikai, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Mark F. Willimann, The Law Office of Mark F. Willimann, LLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

San Juan Hernandez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Hernandez contends that the district court failed to explain adequately its denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We agree. The district court’s order does hot address or explain its rejection of the arguments presented in either Hernandez’s motion for a sentence reduction or probation’s recommendation that the district court grant a sentence reduction. Accordingly, we vacate and remand. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court must provide some explanation for rejecting a defendant’s non-frivolous arguments).

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