United States of America v. Tyler D.k. Pacarro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYLER D.K. PACARRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10430
D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00704-HG-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Tyler D.K. Pacarro 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. We vacate the district court’s order and
remand for the district court to reconsider Pacarro’s motion.
* 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
AUG 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10430
The district court held that Pacarro had not shown “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons warranting his release, as required by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In doing so, the district court appears to have relied on
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, 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 Pacarro’s motion for compassionate release under the
standard set forth there. We offer no views as to the merits of Pacarro’s
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
Because we remand without consideration of the documents subject to
appellant’s motion for judicial notice, we deny the motion.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --