UNITED STATES v. SEVERSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 21-30000

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the district court's denial of Severson's compassionate release motion and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the motion under the correct legal standard established in United States v. Aruda, which holds that sentencing guidelines may inform but are not binding on compassionate release determinations.

Michael Cory Severson appealed the denial of his request for compassionate release under federal law. The district court had rejected his motion, apparently relying on sentencing guidelines that it treated as binding in making its decision. After Severson's appeal was filed, the appellate court decided in a related case that those particular sentencing guidelines are not actually binding when courts consider compassionate release requests. Because the lower court appeared to have applied the wrong legal standard, the appellate court returned the case for reconsideration.

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

Key issues

Whether sentencing guidelines are binding on compassionate release motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
Proper legal standard for evaluating compassionate release requests

Procedural posture

Severson appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Cory Severson appeals pro se 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.

After the district courts decision denying relief, 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) (“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.”). Because it appears that the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and denied Seversons motion pursuant to that guideline, we vacate and remand so the district court can reassess Seversons motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth in Aruda. See id.

We offer no views as to the merits of Seversons § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, and we need not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.

Seversons motion for an extension of time to file his reply brief is granted. The reply brief at Docket Entry No. 21 has been filed and considered.

VACATED and REMANDED.