Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin CISNEROS, aka Moose, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10384

Decided: June 30, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Rachel Kent, Special Assistant United States Attorney, USLV - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the US Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee Leah Rae Wigren, Esquire, Attorney, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant


Martin Cisneros 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.

Cisneros contends that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement. 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 it is unclear whether the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in this case, we vacate and remand so that the district court can reassess Cisneros's motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth in Aruda. See id.

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


Copied to clipboard