NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10384
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:14-cr-00044-MMD-WGC-9
v.
MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Martin Cisneros appeals from the district court’s 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.
Cisneros contends that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement. After the district court’s decision
denying relief and the parties’ briefing on appeal, 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 Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may
inform a district court’s discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a
defendant, but they are not binding.”). Because it is unclear whether the district
court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in this case, we vacate and remand so
that the district court can reassess Cisneros’s motion for compassionate release
under the standard set forth in Aruda. See id.
We offer no views as to the merits of Cisneros’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion,
and we need not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 20-10384