United States of America v. Timothy Binford

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY BINFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30147
D.C. No.
2:14-cr-00166-RMP-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY BINFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30148
D.C. No.
2:00-cr-00099-RMP-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
* 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
AUG 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Timothy Binford appeals from the district court’s orders denying his
motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Intervening authority that the district court
did not have the benefit of when it denied Binford’s motions requires us to vacate
the district court’s denials and remand.
After the district court’s decisions 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) (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.”). It is unclear whether the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as
binding in this case.
In light of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that
the district court can reassess Binford’s motions for compassionate release under
the standard set forth there. See id. We offer no views as to the merits of
Binford’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --