MEMORANDUM **
Trent Scentail Smith 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.
Contrary to Smiths argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion.
1
The district court considered the firearm enhancement applied to Smiths most recent conviction, Smiths history of comingling drugs and firearms, and physical altercations he has engaged in while incarcerated. It reasonably concluded that, even though Smith had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” a reduced sentence was not appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, Smiths criminal history, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when reviewing a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (C) (setting forth sentencing factors); 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).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept, for purposes of this appeal, the governments undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).