USA V. RAUL AMEZCUA, No. 21-10020 (9th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL AMEZCUA, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-10020 D.C. Nos. 1:93-cr-05046-DAD-1 1:93-cr-05046-DAD MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 15, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Raul Amezcua appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court held that Amezcua had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, the district court appears to * 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). have relied on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s policy statement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13. 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, No. 20-10245, 2021 WL 1307884, at *4 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2021) (per curiam). “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 Amezcua’s motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Amezcua’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.