MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated appeals, Howard Wesley Cotterman appeals pro se from the district courts orders denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cotterman contends that the district court should have granted him compassionate release in light of his age, medical conditions, good behavior while incarcerated, remorse, release plans, amount of time served, poor medical care in prison, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. He further argues that the district court misconstrued his arguments, ignored mitigating evidence, and relied on clearly erroneous facts in denying his motion. We disagree. The district court acknowledged Cottermans arguments, but concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly the nature and circumstances of the offense and Cottermans criminal history, did not support Cottermans release. Because the record supports the courts conclusion, it did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under § 3553(a), which alone supports affirming the district courts order. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and explaining that the district court can deny a compassionate release motion based solely on the § 3553(a) 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). Cotterman has not shown that any factual errors made by the court in assessing his criminal history would have affected the courts conclusion that reducing his sentence from 35 to 12 years would not satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Medina, 524 F.3d 974, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (district courts factual errors are harmless if they do not affect the ultimate conclusion).
The record also does not support Cottermans argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. The court considered Cottermans purportedly new evidence and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it did not outweigh the courts concerns about the seriousness of his offense and need to protect the community. See United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order an evidentiary hearing or a psychological evaluation because, as the district court observed, the evidence Cotterman sought to develop would not have affected the courts decision to deny relief. See United States v. Cook, 808 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015).
Finally, the district court did not err by denying as moot his pro se motions for compassionate release after Cotterman filed a counseled motion “amending and supplementing” the earlier pro se filings, nor does the record support Cottermans claims of prosecutorial misconduct, even assuming those claims can be raised in these proceedings.
AFFIRMED.