MEMORANDUM **
Jose Alberto Abundiz appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
As an initial matter, the government contends that venue was improper in the district court. We disagree. In light of Abundizs pro se status and the arguments raised in his motion, the court permissibly construed his motion as a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, his motion was properly filed in the Eastern District of Washington, where he was sentenced.
We also conclude that the court did not err by denying Abundizs motion to appoint counsel. Abundiz does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel on a § 3582(c) motion, see United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996), and the district court reasonably denied appointment given the nature and brevity of Abundizs request.
Turning to the merits of his motion, Abundiz 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 the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. We need not reach the § 1B1.13 question because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Abundizs motion under § 3553(a), which provides an independent basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). The record reflects that the court considered Abundizs medical condition and arguments for release, but reasonably concluded that the § 3553(a) factors, including Abundizs history and characteristics and the need for deterrence, did not warrant compassionate release.
Finally, the district court did not err by denying Abundizs motion with prejudice. Contrary to Abundizs assertion, the denial with prejudice does not preclude him from filing another motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) should his circumstances change.
AFFIRMED.