United States v. Aruda
Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 20-10245,20-10245 |
Citation | 993 F.3d 797 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia ARUDA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Salina M. Kanai, Interim Federal Public Defender; Sharron I. Rancourt, Assistant Federal Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Defendant-Appellant.
Kenji M. Price, United States Attorney; Marion Purcell, Chief of Appeals; Thomas Muehleck, Assistant United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Aruda appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We hold that the current version of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") § 1B1.13 is not an "applicable policy statement[ ] issued by the Sentencing Commission" for motions filed by a defendant under the recently amended § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, we vacate and remand so that the district court can reassess Aruda's motion for compassionate release under the correct legal standard.
In 2015, Aruda pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Aruda to 130 months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.
About five years later, in June 2020, Aruda filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Aruda argued that the high number of COVID-19 cases at her prison facility, combined with her particular medical conditions which increased her risk for serious complications should she contract COVID-19, created "extraordinary and compelling" reasons justifying her release.
In July 2020, the district court denied Aruda's motion for compassionate release. As a preliminary issue, the district court determined that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is binding on federal courts when a defendant has filed a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A). At the time, district courts across the country were split over this issue because the First Step Act of 2018 amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow for defendants, in addition to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Director, to file a motion, but U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 has not since been amended and only references motions filed by the BOP Director.
Relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A), the district court found that Aruda's circumstances constituted "extraordinary and compelling" reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A). However, citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the district court determined that Aruda's release was unwarranted based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the danger she posed to the community as provided under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). This dangerousness finding is not statutorily required under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but is part of the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).
Accordingly, the district court denied Aruda's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We have not yet set forth the standard of review for sentence reduction decisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). However, "[w]e review § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of discretion." United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Likewise, we hold that we review § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of discretion.
"A district court may abuse its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact." Id. (citation omitted). "Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo." United States v. Washington , 971 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2020).
"A federal court generally ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.’ " Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 819, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) ). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Congress provided an exception, sometimes known as compassionate release, to reduce a sentence for "extraordinary and compelling reasons." For over thirty years, under the original statute, only the BOP Director could file a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction on a defendant's behalf. However, as part of the First Step Act of 2018, Congress amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to also allow a defendant to seek a reduction directly from the court, provided that the defendant first seeks a reduction from the BOP and that request has either been denied or 30 days have passed. Pub. L. No. 115-391, Title VI, sec. 603(b)(1), § 3582, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018).
Section 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, currently provides:
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphases added).
Congress provided no statutory definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons." Instead, Congress stated that the Sentencing Commission, "in promulgating general policy statements regarding the sentencing modification provisions in section 3582(c)(1)(A) of title 18, shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples." 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) ; see also id. § 994(a)(2)(C).
The Sentencing Commission's policy statement regarding "Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)" is found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. However, the Sentencing Commission has not updated § 1B1.13 since the First Step Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A).1 The current version of § 1B1.13 refers only to motions filed by the BOP Director, and does not reference motions filed by a defendant as now allowed under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 provides:
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (emphasis added).
In addition, in Application Note 1, the Sentencing Commission described four categories of "Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons." Id. cmt. n.1. The first three categories concern the "Medical Condition of the Defendant," "Age of the Defendant," and "Family Circumstances." Id. cmt. n.1(A)–(C). The fourth category is a catch-all provision vesting the "Director of the Bureau of Prisons" with the authority to determine "other" extraordinary and compelling reasons. Id. cmt. n.1(D).
Further, Application Note 4 states:
4. Motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.—A reduction under this policy statement may be granted only upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Commission encourages the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to file such a motion if the defendant meets any of the circumstances set forth in Application Note 1. The court is in a unique position to determine whether the circumstances warrant a reduction (and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria set forth in this policy statement, such as the defendant's medical condition, the defendant's family circumstances, and whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.
Id. cmt. n.4 (emphasis added).
Following the First Step Act's amendment of § 3582(c)(1)(A), district courts across the country were initially split on whether U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is an "applicable policy statement[ ] issued by the Sentencing Commission" for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant rather than the BOP Director. However, after ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Trenkler
...and, as always, the sentencing factors in § 3553(a)"); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1181 (7th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2021) (concluding that " U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court's discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a ......
-
United States v. Ruvalcaba
...decided the issue. See United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021) ; Long, 997 F.3d at 359 ; United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1050 (1......
-
United States v. Bryant, 19-14267
...; United States v. Jones , 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Maumau , 993 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2021). Until now, we have expressly reserved judgment on this question......
-
United States v. Jenkins
... ... 2021); ... United States v. Tomes , 990 F.3d 500, 503 n.1 (6th ... Cir. 2021); United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, ... 1180 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Marcussen , 15 ... F.4th 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2021); United States v ... Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021); United ... States v. Hald , 8 F.4th 932, 938 n.4 (10th Cir. 2021) ... Jenkins' ... contrary arguments are unconvincing. Citing Long , ... Jenkins first contends that the guidance is unpersuasive ... because it ... ...