Opinion
No. 20-10358
05-24-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JA'DEL RAYNARD McFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00266-HSG-5 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ja'Del Raynard McField 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. We vacate the district court's order and remand for the district court to reconsider McField's motion.
The district court concluded that McField had not shown "extraordinary and compelling" reasons warranting his release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, it is unclear whether the district court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding. After the district court's 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 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." Id.
In light of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that the district court can reassess McField's motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of McField's § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.