Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zalathiel AGUILA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10287

Decided: June 25, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Lee Saara Bickley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC - Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Michael Gordon Tierney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Amanda K. Moran, Esquire, Moran Law Firm, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Zalathiel Aguila 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. We vacate the district court's order and remand for the district court to reconsider Aguila's motion.

The district court held that Aguila had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, the district court relied on 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) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “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 Aguila's motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Aguila's § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.


Copied to clipboard