United States v. Coraleen Tuisaloo

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10021 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00036-DKW-1

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CORALEEN TUISALOO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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.

Coraleen Tuisaloo appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

Tuisaloo 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). Therefore, we grant Tuisaloo’s motion to expedite submission of this case without oral argument.

as a binding policy statement. The government concedes, and we agree, that remand is warranted for the district court to reassess Tuisaloo’s motion for compassionate release under the standard set forth in United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he 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.” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Tuisaloo’s motion and remand for further proceedings. See id.

We offer no views as to the merits of Tuisaloo’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, and we need not reach her remaining arguments on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 21-10021