UNITED STATES v. FAAITA (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Faaita appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion based on its determination that Faaita posed “a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13(2). “This dangerousness finding is not statutorily required under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but is part of the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

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.” Id. at 802. “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 Faaita's motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Faaita's § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.

Faaita's motion to expedite is denied as moot.

VACATED AND REMANDED.