United States of America v. Raul Amezcua

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAUL AMEZCUA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10020
D.C. Nos.
1:93-cr-05046-DAD-1
1:93-cr-05046-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 15, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Raul Amezcua 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 held
that Amezcua 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 appears to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
have relied on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s policy statement in U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“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, No. 20-10245, 2021 WL 1307884, at *4 (9th
Cir. Apr. 8, 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.” Id.
In light of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that
the district court can reassess Amezcua’s motion for compassionate release under
the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Amezcua’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --