US
v. Aruda, No. 20-10245 (4-8-21)(Per curiam w/Wardlaw, Gould,
& Owens). Who says the 9th is without “Compassion”? In a Compassionate
Release appeal, under the First Step Act, the 9th holds that the USSG’s 1B1.13
is not an “applicable policy statement” for such motions filed by a defendant.
The USSC’s policy statements, which sets forth various limiting factors, are
for BOP’s motions; they may inform the district court’s discretion, but do not
control. The 9th vacates and remands the district court’s denial because the
court’s denial was based on the motion not meeting the factors in the policy
statement.
The 9th’s decision recognizes that the First Step Act
creates another means of compassionate release. It can be for “extraordinary
and compelling reasons.” This is left undefined. It expanded the use of such release. The Act
does state that motions should be consistent with any policy statements by the Sentencing
but there are none: the Sentencing Com’n, lacking a quorum, has not issued
policy statements. Thus, courts can determine what are “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons.
The 9th’s opinion joins five other circuits.
The 9th also holds that 3582(c)(1) motions are
reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The importance of this per curiam opinion is the
emphasis on the First Steps Act’s intent to expedite and expand release and
that the Guidelines policy statements restrictions on such motions bind only
the BOP motions and are not binding on defendant’s motions.
The opinion is here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/08/20-10245.pdf
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home