Case Information
*1 Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Lee Craig appeals the denial of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)-(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon , 14 F.4th 961, 964 (9th Cir. 2021), but review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal standard, United States *2 v. Gasca-Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We affirm.
1. Craig contends that the district court erred by stating it lacked authority to consider his post-conviction incarceration conditions when analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. See Lizarraras-Chacon , 14 F.4th at 968 (holding that a district court abuses its discretion if it “erroneously conclude [s] that” a defendant’s argument cannot be considered “in its § 3553(a) factor analysis” ).
In denying Craig’s motion, the district court stated: “ Moreover, the Court does not evaluate Defendant’s current circumstances in prison because the considerations that the Court based Defendant’s original sentence on have not changed. ” United States v. Craig , No. 3:20-CR-07-SI, 2024 WL 5168335, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2024). Even assuming that Craig’s incarceration conditions were relevant to the § 3553(a) analysis, “ [t] he district court’s comment must be read in the context of the entir ety of its ruling a nd the record as a whole.” United States v. Ehmer , 87 F.4th 1073, 1116 (9th Cir. 2023). Under such a reading, we find no reversible error.
The district court correctly stated that “[s]tep two of the § 3582(c) inquiry is to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine, in the discretion of the Court, whether any reduction authorized by the Guidelines amendment is warranted in whole or in part.” , 2024 WL 5168335, at *2. The court’s order carefully reviewed those factors, including the need “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). It expressly found that because of “the *3 danger he poses to the community,” and because of his extensive criminal record, Craig’s original sentence “remains appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors.” , 2024 WL 5168335, at *3.
Significantly, the district court quoted extensively from United States v. Steidell , No. 12-CR-01259-DKW-02, 2024 WL 1414195, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr. 2, 2024), after the statement about Craig’s current circumstances . See Craig , 2024 WL 5168335, at *2. Steidell also considered a sentence reduction motion based on post- conviction factors. 2024 WL 1414195, at *3 . The Steidell court recognized the defendant’s argument but nonetheless denied the motion because the conditions justifying the original sentence “ha [d] not changed.” Id. The district court’s reliance on Steidell convinces us that it employed a similar analysis.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.