MEMORANDUM **
Atorbe Aaron Isibor 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Isibor argues that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that his medical conditions did not provide a basis for relief, and by relying on the nature of his offense rather than his rehabilitative efforts and other mitigating circumstances. We disagree. The court acknowledged that Isibors medical conditions were “not insignificant,” but reasonably concluded that they were not serious enough to justify release, given the circumstances at his prison and the fact that only one of his conditions subjected him to a potentially greater risk from COVID-19. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding that, given the nature and scope of Isibors offense, as well as his criminal history, release was not warranted. 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); 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.”). Finally, contrary to Isibors contention, there is no indication in the record that the district court impermissibly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802.
AFFIRMED.