MEMORANDUM **
Joshua Nicholas Higgins appeals pro se 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.
As an initial matter, the government contends that venue in the district court was improper. We disagree. In light of Higginss pro se status and the arguments raised in his motion, the district court permissibly construed his motion as a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) and, as such, his motion was properly filed in the Eastern District of Washington. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Turning to the merits, Higgins contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions subject him to greater risk of illness should he contract COVID-19 and because of the high number of COVID-19 infections at his facility.
1
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court considered Higginss medical conditions, the conditions at his facility, and his family circumstances,
2
and reasonably concluded that Higgins had not demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Higginss filing at Docket Entry No. 5 is treated as a motion to supplement his opening brief. So treated, the motion is granted. The filing has been considered.
2
. In the district court, Higgins cited his parents’ serious health issues as an independent reason to grant compassionate release. The government contends that Higgins waived this argument by failing to renew it on appeal. We need not resolve this question because our conclusion is the same whether or not we consider the circumstances of Higginss parents.