Opinion ID: 1358035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relief Available to Crickon[10]

Text: The government argues that even if we conclude that the final rule is invalid, the interim rules would also disqualify Crickon from early release. The government's argument is based on our previous holding that [t]he effect of invalidating an agency rule is to reinstate the rule previously in force. Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). However, in Paulsen, we declined to reinstate the rule previously in force, because that rule erroneously interpreted § 3621(e)(2)(B). Id. at 1008 (citation omitted). Because the interim rules in this case suffer from the same defect as the final rulelack of articulation of the agency's rationalewe similarly decline to reinstate them. [11] See id.