MEMORANDUM **
James Brett Zimmerman 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.
Zimmerman contends that the district court failed to consider sufficiently his arguments for compassionate release and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and did not adequately explain its decision to deny his motion. The record reflects that the court considered Zimmermans arguments and the relevant § 3553(a) factors and provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for denying relief, including Zimmermans extensive criminal history. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018). We need not reach Zimmermans argument that the district courts findings regarding the risk to him posed by COVID-19 were erroneous because the courts independent conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief provides an adequate basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny a compassionate release motion solely on the basis of the § 3553(a) factors). Because the district court appropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors and Zimmermans arguments, and reasonably concluded that relief was not warranted, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Zimmermans motion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281, 1284; United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.