MEMORANDUM **
Elvis Henry Idada 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, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in its denial of Idadas motion.
1
First, the record reflects that the district court considered the general conditions at FMC-Devens, but reasonably concluded that Idada failed to demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release in light of his good health. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Contrary to Idadas argument, the district court also properly considered the nature of his offense and reasonably denied relief on those grounds as well. 2
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release). Finally, the record belies Idadas assertion that the district court treated him more harshly because his underlying offense targeted lawyers.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The parties dispute whether an abuse of discretion or de novo standard of review applies. We need not address this dispute as our conclusion is the same under either standard.
2
. We do not reach whether the court properly considered victim impact statements because the district court stated that its ruling would be the same in the absence of the statements.