MEMORANDUM **
Jesse Allan Shandy appeals from the district courts 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.
The district court denied Shandys motion in a form order, stating only that Shandy had not established “extraordinary circumstances justifying early release.” Shandy argues that this statement provides an insufficient explanation for why the court denied his motion, and suggests the possibility that the court impermissibly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. We do not reach Sandys first argument because we agree that the courts limited explanation for its denial of Shandys motion makes it impossible to determine if the district court treated § 1B1.13 as binding, in contravention of United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). In Aruda, which we decided after the district court denied Shandys motion, we held that a district court may not treat § 1B1.13 as binding as applied to a compassionate release motion filed by a prisoner because “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 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). In light of this new guidance, we vacate the district courts order and remand for the court to reassess Shandys motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth in Aruda.
We offer no views as to the merits of Shandys § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion.
VACATED and REMANDED.