MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated appeals, Edward Jameson Purry II appeals from the district courts orders denying his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Purry challenges the district courts conclusions that he did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief and that relief was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We need not reach Purrys argument that his health conditions, likelihood of reinfection, and the conditions at his prison constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant compassionate release because the district court also reasonably concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny a compassionate release motion solely on the basis of the § 3553(a) factors). The record demonstrates that the district court appropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors and concluded that relief was not warranted in light of the seriousness and circumstances of Purrys offense, as well as his performance on pretrial release. Contrary to Purrys arguments, the court did not abuse its discretion by (1) failing to give greater weight to his limited criminal history and other mitigating factors, (2) weighing the likelihood of Purrys reinfection with COVID-19 against the other § 3553(a) factors, including the need to avoid sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6), or (3) misunderstanding the circumstances of Purrys pretrial release revocation.
Because we have decided this case without any consideration of Purrys vaccination status, we deny the governments motion for judicial notice and to supplement the record, and we deny as moot Purrys motion to strike the portions of the answering brief discussing Purrys status.
AFFIRMED.