United States of America v. Hector Cirino

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HECTOR CIRINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10326
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00176-JCM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hector Cirino appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Cirino contends that the district court misinterpreted § 3582(c)(1)(A) by
* 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).
FILED
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10326
concluding that it could not consider changes in sentencing law as an extraordinary
and compelling reason for release. After the district court’s decision, we held that
district courts may consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law as an
extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Roper, 72 F.4th 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023) (“district courts may consider non-
retroactive changes in post-sentencing decisional law affecting the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines” when considering whether the defendant has established
extraordinary and compelling reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)); United States v.
Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[D]istrict courts may consider non-
retroactive changes in sentencing law . . . when analyzing extraordinary and
compelling reasons for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A).”). We vacate and remand so
that the district court can reassess Cirino’s motion in light of our decisions in
Roper and Chen.
We offer no views as to the merits of Cirino’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, and
we do not reach his remaining arguments on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --