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.