United States of America v. RAPHAEL SAKARIA, AKA Dawg, AKA Ralph

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAPHAEL SAKARIA, AKA Dawg, AKA
Ralph,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10067
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00064-LEK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Raphael Sakaria 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
* 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). Accordingly, Sakaria’s
motion to expedite this appeal without oral argument is granted.
FILED
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10067
remand for the district court to reconsider Sakaria’s motion.
Sakaria contends that the district court reversibly erred under United States
v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021), in which 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.” Id. at 802 (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted). The district court’s order, issued before our
decision in Aruda, indicates that the court may have placed impermissible weight
on the Guideline. The court stated, with a citation to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2), that
Sakaria was “required to demonstrate” that he “is not a danger to the safety of any
other person or to the community,” and it then expressly incorporated that
dangerousness analysis into its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. In light
of our intervening decision in Aruda, we vacate and remand so that the district
court can reassess Sakaria’s motion for compassionate release under the standard
set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Sakaria’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
motion.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --