UNITED STATES v. LYMAN (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Jacob Lyman appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court held that Lyman had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release or a reduction in his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, the district court relied on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13.

After the district court's decision, we held that “the current version of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not an ‘applicable policy statement[ ]’ for 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). “The Sentencing Commission's statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court's discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not binding.” Id.

In light of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that the district court can reassess Lyman's § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Lyman's § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.

Lyman's motion to expedite is denied as moot.

VACATED AND REMANDED.