United States v. John Keinath

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30050
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00182-MJP-1
v.
JOHN CHARLES KEINATH, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant John Keinath timely appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Reviewing for abuse
of discretion, United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam), we vacate and remand for reconsideration.
*
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).
After the district court issued its original order, we held in United States v.
Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), that United States Sentencing
Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 1B1.13 is not binding when, as here, a defendant files a
motion for release. Accordingly, the district court erred by holding that U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 "is binding on this Court."
We are not persuaded that the error was harmless. The court cited the
Guideline repeatedly in its analysis. The court analyzed three circumstances of
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release defined by the Guideline,
suggesting that it thought it was bound by those categories. And the court applied
the Guideline’s dangerousness requirement, which the statute lacks. Because the
district court has broad discretion, and because the court appears to have
misunderstood that it was bound by the Guideline, we vacate the court’s order and
remand for reconsideration.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2