UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendall THRIFT, Defendant-Appellant.
Kendall Thrift 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, and we affirm.
Contrary to Thrift's argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion.1 The district court considered Thrift's offense conduct, which involved a large amount of marijuana and a number of firearms, including several stolen weapons. It reasonably concluded that, even if Thrift had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” a reduced sentence was not appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when reviewing a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (C) (setting forth sentencing factors); United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
1. The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept, for purposes of this appeal, the parties’ assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).