MEMORANDUM **
Gregory Hoffman appeals from the district courts 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.
Hoffman contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement and abused its discretion in concluding that Hoffmans release would pose a danger to the public. This court recently held that the current version of § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). While the district court appears to have improperly applied § 1B1.13 in assessing Hoffmans dangerousness, it also found that Hoffmans release was not warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Given the record before the district court, it did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under § 3553(a). See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (stating standard of review); United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the courts § 3553(a) analysis alone provides a basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.