MEMORANDUM **
Jeremiah Ieremia 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.
Ieremia contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as a binding policy statement. 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 defendants. 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.”). In this case, the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and relied on it to conclude that no extraordinary and compelling reasons for release existed and that relief was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the danger Ieremia posed to the community. As the government concedes, this was error. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802. We, therefore, vacate and remand so that the court can reassess Ieremias motion under the standard set forth in Aruda.
1
We offer no views as to the merits of Ieremias § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, and we need not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Although the government argues that the district courts error was harmless because Ieremia is not entitled to relief even under the correct legal standard, we leave it to the district court to decide that question in the first instance.