United States of America v. JEREMIAH IEREMIA, AKA A-One

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEREMIAH IEREMIA, AKA A-One,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10025
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00744-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021 **
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jeremiah Ieremia 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, and we vacate and remand.
Ieremia contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
* 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). Ieremia’s motion to expedite
the hearing of this appeal without oral argument is granted.
FILED
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10025
as a binding policy statement. After the district court’s decision denying relief, this
court held that the current version of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993
F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (“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.”). In this case, the district
court treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and relied on it to conclude that no
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release existed and that relief was
unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the danger Ieremia
posed to the community. As the government concedes, this was error. See Aruda,
993 F.3d at 802. We, therefore, vacate and remand so that the court can reassess
Ieremia’s motion under the standard set forth in Aruda.1 We offer no views as to
the merits of Ieremia’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, and we need not reach his
remaining arguments on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1 Although the government argues that the district court’s error was harmless
because Ieremia is not entitled to relief even under the correct legal standard, we
leave it to the district court to decide that question in the first instance.

-- 2 of 2 --