United States v. Elwood Staudinger, Jr.

facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling. We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for compassionate

release.

A compassionate release decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). “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 United States v. Dunn, 728

F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013)). When a defendant moves for compassionate

release under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court must determine, inter alia, “whether

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction.” United States

v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that

Staudinger did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant relief.

Staudinger argues that non-retroactive changes in the law would reduce his offense

level from 34 to 31 if he were sentenced today. At his original sentencing, the

district court varied downward significantly from the advisory…