UNITED STATES v. FAAITA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-14No. No. 20-10380

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the district court's denial of the compassionate release motion and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard, which does not treat the sentencing guideline's dangerousness provision as mandatory.

Mark Faaita sought compassionate release from his sentence under federal law. The district court rejected his request, reasoning that he presented a danger to others or the community based on a sentencing guideline policy statement. However, the appellate court had recently decided in a related case that this particular guideline policy statement is not binding on courts reviewing compassionate release motions, though it may still inform their discretion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether sentencing guideline policy statements are binding in compassionate release proceedings
The proper standard for evaluating dangerousness in § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions
Distinction between binding law and discretionary guidance in post-conviction relief

Procedural posture

Faaita appealed a district court order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Faaita appeals from the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion based on its determination that Faaita posed “a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13(2). “This dangerousness finding is not statutorily required under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but is part of the Sentencing Commissions policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

After the district courts 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.” Id. at 802. “The Sentencing Commissions statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district courts 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 Faaitas motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Faaitas § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.

Faaitas motion to expedite is denied as moot.

VACATED AND REMANDED.