MEMORANDUM **
Cameron Bell appeals 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Bell challenges the district courts conclusions that he poses a danger to the community and that release was unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the § 3553(a) factors, including the danger Bell poses to the community in light of the seriousness of his underlying conviction, weighed against granting relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (C); 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). Moreover, contrary to Bells contention, the courts explanation was sufficient to show that it had considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018).
Because we decide this case without reference to the documents at issue in appellees motion for judicial notice, the motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.