Even though USSG § 1B1.13 does not apply to a defendant’s compassionate-release motion, since the district court also conducted a detailed review of the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court’s consideration of § 1B1.13’s dangerousness criterion does not require reversal.
We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for compassionate release.
The district court conducted a detailed review of the relevant § 3553(a) factors, explaining its conclusions that defendant’s offense and criminal history were serious, that any sentencing disparity had been resolved through a prior reduction, and that compassionate release would not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or adequately deter further crime. Defendant does not take issue with any portion of this analysis, and it finds support in the record.
Nothing in the court’s analysis suggests that its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was influenced by its consideration of USSG § 1B1.13(2). We therefore conclude that any error the district court’s reliance on the policy statement was not reversible, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
United States v. Wallace (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-018-22, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) 21-6135. Appealed from USDC at Columbia, S.C. (Joseph Anderson, S.J.) Jeremy Thompson for appellant; Rhett DeHart and Stacey Haynes for appellee. 4th Cir. Unpub.