MEMORANDUM **
Frederick Glen Johnson appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his 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 affirm.
Contrary to Johnsons argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion.
1
The court considered Johnsons offense conduct, which involved repeated brandishing of a firearm, and his numerous prior convictions. In light of Johnsons history, the court concluded that, even if Johnson had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying relief, a reduced sentence was not warranted under the sentencing factors, particularly the need to protect the public. 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)(C). Because the courts conclusion is supported by the record, it did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. See 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).
We treat Johnsons “notice and motion of appeal” as a motion to file a supplemental brief. So treated, the motion is granted.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
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).