MEMORANDUM **
Tyler D.K. Pacarro appeals from the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the district courts order and remand for the district court to reconsider Pacarros motion.
The district court held that Pacarro had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, the district court appears to have relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. 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.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “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 Pacarros motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Pacarros § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
Because we remand without consideration of the documents subject to appellants motion for judicial notice, we deny the motion.
VACATED and REMANDED.