United States of America v. Leslie Minoru Ueki

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LESLIE MINORU UEKI,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10325
D.C. Nos.
1:08-cr-00715-DKW-1
1:08-cr-00715-DKW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 12, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Leslie Minoru Ueki 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 Ueki 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
* 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
MAY 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
concluded it was bound by 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, 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.” Id.
In light of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that
the district court can reassess Ueki’s motion for compassionate release under the
standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Ueki’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --