United States of America v. Michael Prem

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL PREM,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10054
D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00490-LEK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021 **
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Prem 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.
Prem contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as a
* 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). Prem’s motion to expedite
the hearing of this appeal without oral argument is granted.
FILED
JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10054
binding policy statement. The government concedes, and we agree, that remand is
warranted for the district court to reassess Prem’s motion for compassionate
release under the standard set forth in United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802
(9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he 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.”
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate the
district court’s order denying Prem’s motion and remand for further proceedings.
See id.
We offer no views as to the merits of Prem’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, and
we need not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --