UNITED STATES v. BINFORD (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Binford appeals from the district court's orders denying his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Intervening authority that the district court did not have the benefit of when it denied Binford's motions requires us to vacate the district court's denials and remand.

After the district court's decisions denying relief and the parties’ briefing on appeal, this court held that the current version of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by prisoners. See 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.”). It is unclear whether the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in this case.

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

VACATED and REMANDED.