MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Brett VanBenschoten 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. We deny VanBenschotens emergency motions for relief.
“[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam)). “A district court may abuse its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Id. (quoting Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying VanBenschotens motion after considering the statutory sentencing factors. The compassionate release statute directs courts to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court here properly considered those factors and concluded that, on balance, they weighed against release. VanBenschoten had received a below-Guidelines sentence of 96 months, and at the time the district court ruled on his motion, he had served only twenty percent of it—roughly 18 months. Moreover, his crimes were serious: he was found in possession of a significant amount of methamphetamine as well as other drugs. Thus, the district court applied the correct law and its decision did not rest on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.
AFFIRMED.