MEMORANDUM **

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 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) (“[WJhen 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.