Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Adin GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30237

Decided: June 24, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Leah K. Bolstad, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States District Court, Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse, Portland, OR, Amy Potter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Adin Graham, Pro Se


Christopher Adin Graham appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

After the district court's decision 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) (“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.”). Because the district court provided no explanation for its decision to deny Graham's motion, we cannot determine whether it relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in denying relief. Therefore, we vacate and remand so that the district court can reassess Graham's motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth in Aruda. See id.

We offer no views as to the merits of Graham's § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, and we need not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.


Copied to clipboard