United States v. Rodriguez

24-1569
United States v. Rodriguez
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
August Term, 2024
No. 24-1569
UNITED S TATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
L UIS RODRIGUEZ ,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from an Order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
S UBMITTED: JANUARY 2, 2025
D ECIDED: A UGUST 11, 2025
Before: S ULLIVAN, N ARDINI, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Luis Rodriguez, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, appeals from an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto,

-- 1 of 18 --

2
District Judge) denying his motion for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Although Rodriguez has not yet filed his
appellate brief, and in fact no briefing schedule has yet been set, this
case comes before us on Rodriguez’s motion for the appointment of
counsel and for a certificate of appealability. Because 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) directs courts to dismiss an appeal brought in forma
pauperis “if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is
frivolous,” we must first determine whether Rodriguez’s appeal
presents “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It does not.
Rodriguez is serving concurrent life sentences following his
conviction on charges for the murder of two people, including a
fourteen-year-old, and related drug and firearm offenses. The district
court denied compassionate release on the grounds that (1) Rodriguez
had not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances
warranting a sentence reduction, and (2) even if he had, the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors—especially the seriousness of his offense
and the need to protect the public—weighed against reducing his
sentence.
We conclude that the district court acted well within its broad
discretion in denying compassionate release. Rodriguez’s appeal
therefore lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Accordingly,
we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Further, we DENY Rodriguez’s motion for
appointment of counsel as moot, and DENY his motion for a
certificate of appealability, which is not required here.

-- 2 of 18 --

3
Rebecca M. Schuman, Assistant United
States Attorney, for John J. Durham, United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of
New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
Luis Rodriguez, pro se, Atwater, CA,
Defendant-Appellant.
WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-Appellant Luis Rodriguez, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, appeals from a decision of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto,
District Judge) denying his motion for a sentence reduction
(commonly known as “compassionate release”) under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Although Rodriguez has not yet filed his appellate
brief, and in fact no briefing schedule has yet been set, this case comes
before us on Rodriguez’s motion for the appointment of counsel and
for a certificate of appealability. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
directs courts to dismiss an appeal brought in forma pauperis “if the
court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous,” we
must first determine whether Rodriguez’s appeal presents “an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). It does not.

-- 3 of 18 --

4
In 2006, a jury convicted Rodriguez of conspiring to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, of committing two
murders in furtherance of that conspiracy, and of related firearm
offenses. He was sentenced to life in prison. After his direct appeal
and habeas petition were denied, Rodriguez moved for
compassionate release, citing, among other factors, alleged errors
committed by the district court at sentencing, the “punitive
conditions of confinement” at the prison facility where he was then
incarcerated, and his elevated risk of infection from COVID-19. The
district court denied compassionate release, concluding that
Rodriguez had not shown extraordinary and compelling
circumstances warranting a sentence reduction, and that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors—especially the seriousness of his offense
and the need to protect the public—weighed against reducing his
sentence.
Rodriguez is responsible for the murder of two people,
including a fourteen-year-old, and he has committed dozens of
infractions while in custody, including possessing a dangerous
weapon, fighting, and assault. Even if Rodriguez had shown any
extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify his release (and we
agree with the district court that he has not), we would still conclude
that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in denying
compassionate release on the independent basis that the § 3553(a)
factors foreclose a sentence reduction. Because Rodriguez has raised
no arguable basis for challenging the district court’s decision, we
DISMISS the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

-- 4 of 18 --

5
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Further, we DENY Rodriguez’s motion for
appointment of counsel as moot, and DENY his motion for a
certificate of appealability, which is not required here.
I. Background
A. Rodriguez’s Offense Conduct, Conviction, and
Sentence
In September 2000, Rodriguez and several others participated
in a murder-for-hire plot to kill two men accused of stealing cash from
a stash house belonging to a Brooklyn-based drug trafficking
operation. Rodriguez volunteered to supervise the scheme; assisted
in planning the murders, including by identifying the targets (who
the conspirators later realized were not in fact the men who stole from
the stash house); and was present at the scene when an associate shot
and killed the mistakenly identified men. In February 2005, a grand
jury indicted Rodriguez on six counts: one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; two counts of murder while
engaged in a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 848(e)(1)(A); one count of possession of a firearm in relation to a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii); and
two counts of using a firearm to commit murder, in violation of 18

-- 5 of 18 --

6
U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).1 In November 2006, after a two-week trial, a jury
convicted Rodriguez on all counts.
Several years of motion practice separated his conviction and
sentencing. In January 2007, Rodriguez—still represented by his trial
counsel—moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or, in the alternative, a new trial
under Rule 33. While that counseled motion was still pending,
Rodriguez submitted a pro se motion for a new trial, based on a claim
of newly discovered evidence, in May 2009. On July 29, 2010, the
district court (David G. Trager, District Judge) denied Rodriguez’s
pending motions and proceeded to sentence him principally to ten
years in prison on the § 924(c) count to run concurrently with the life
sentence imposed on each of the five other counts.
B. Rodriguez’s Post-Trial Challenges to His Conviction
Once the judgment became final, Rodriguez began a series of
challenges to his conviction. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed
Rodriguez’s judgment of conviction in November 2012. United States
v. Rodriguez, 503 F. App’x 72, 74 (2d Cir. 2012). After losing his direct
appeal, Rodriguez filed a habeas petition in 2014, seeking to vacate
his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied that
motion in December 2020. Rodriguez then moved for a certificate of
1 Rodriguez has been in federal custody since 2001, when he was arrested
on different federal drug charges. This Court vacated his conviction on those
charges (based on insufficient evidence), see United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539,
549 (2d Cir. 2004), but he was indicted and ordered detained in this case before he
could be released in the prior case.

-- 6 of 18 --

7
appealability and appointment of counsel. This Court denied that
motion and dismissed the appeal in August 2021, concluding that
Rodriguez had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.
C. Rodriguez’s Motion for Compassionate Release
In April 2022, Rodriguez petitioned the warden of United
States Penitentiary (“USP”) Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky, where he
was then incarcerated, to file on his behalf in the district court a
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
In February 2023, after receiving no response from the prison
warden, Rodriguez filed his own motion for compassionate release.
Rodriguez raised several reasons to justify a sentence reduction,
including (1) his “[g]ood [c]onduct” and participation in “various
courses and vocational trainings” while incarcerated; (2) the
“punitive conditions of confinement” and presence of radon (a
radioactive gas) at USP Big Sandy; (3) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities between Rodriguez and other, similarly
situated defendants around the country; and (4) his elevated risk of
severe infection from COVID-19 due to numerous chronic health
conditions that the Bureau of Prisons had allegedly failed to
adequately manage. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 262-2 at 4–16. He also argued
that his two life sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e) violated Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the question of whether
death resulted from the underlying drug trafficking offense was not

-- 7 of 18 --

8
submitted to the jury, and that the district court failed to consider his
arguments at sentencing. As relief, Rodriguez requested “immediate
release” or, in the alternative, a sentence reduction to twenty-five
years. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 262-2 at 19.
The district court denied Rodriguez’s motion on December 13,
2023, on two independent bases. First, the court concluded that
Rodriguez had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting a reduction of his sentence. The court reasoned that while
his participation in educational programming was commendable, he
had incurred thirty disciplinary incidents while in custody, and, in
any event, rehabilitation alone cannot support compassionate release.
The court also found that Rodriguez’s medical conditions did not
warrant release because all inmates faced the risk of COVID-19, his
medical records showed that he was receiving regular medical
attention, and the Probation Department reported that his medical
needs could be easily managed by periodic clinician evaluations.
Further, the court found that his claims of radon exposure were
unsupported and had been expressly denied by the prison warden.
Lastly, the court noted that the Probation Department did not believe
that release was warranted.
As a second basis for denying relief, the district court also
determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against reducing
Rodriguez’s sentence. The court emphasized “the extreme
seriousness of Mr. Rodriguez’s offense and the need to protect the
public,” and cited his conviction for “the murder of two individuals”
and his many “violations while in custody” as considerations that

-- 8 of 18 --

9
“support Mr. Rodriguez completing his sentence.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No.
281 at 7. Moreover, the court declined to consider Rodriguez’s
collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence on the ground that a
motion for compassionate release is an improper vehicle for such
arguments, which had already been rejected on direct appeal and
habeas review.
Rodriguez now appeals the denial of compassionate release.
He also moves for appointment of counsel and a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). He again contends that his sentence is
unlawful because the sentencing judge did not give reasons for
imposing five concurrent life sentences. He also raises three
arguments specific to the district court’s denial of compassionate
release. First, he contends that the district court did not adequately
consider his claim that he was being exposed to radon at USP Big
Sandy. Second, he contends that the court disregarded his medical
conditions and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. Finally, he
contends that the court improperly relied on a second addendum to
the Presentence Report, which the court requested to ascertain the
Probation Department’s position on Rodriguez’s motion, because he
never received a copy of the addendum and had no opportunity to
object to it.
II. Discussion
Under Section 404 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132
Stat. 5194 (2018), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a court may
reduce a previously imposed sentence of imprisonment—an act

-- 9 of 18 --

10
commonly known as “compassionate release”—upon finding that
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”
United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Compassionate release is a three-part process.
See id. First, the defendant must ask prison officials to file a motion
for compassionate release on his behalf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The defendant may file his own motion only “after the defendant has
fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the
Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the
lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of
the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A); however, the government may waive or forfeit this
requirement, United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2021).
Second, a court must consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) “to the extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Those factors include “the nature and circumstances
of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”;
“the need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense”; and “the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Third, the
defendant must establish “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for
seeking relief that, considered in light of the § 3553(a) factors, justify
a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The proffered
reasons may “not simply constitute second-guessing of the sentence
previously imposed.” Keitt, 21 F.4th at 71.

-- 10 of 18 --

11
“[A] district court’s discretion in [deciding a compassionate
release motion]—as in all sentencing matters—is broad.” United
States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 237 (2d Cir. 2020); see also United States
v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 188 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (noting a district
court’s “very wide latitude” in sentencing). In the compassionate
release context—just as at the time of the original sentencing—“[t]he
weight to be afforded any § 3553(a) factor is a matter firmly
committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge.” Keitt, 21 F.4th
at 72 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v.
Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 131 (2d Cir. 2008)). If the court determines
that the § 3553(a) factors weigh against a sentence reduction, it may
deny the motion on that basis alone. Id. at 73. But if the court
proceeds to determine whether the defendant has established
extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying relief, the court may
consider “the full slate” of reasons that the defendant proffers.
Brooker, 976 F.3d at 237. The breadth of that slate, however, is not
unlimited. For one, “rehabilitation [] alone shall not be considered an
extraordinary and compelling reason.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) (emphasis
added). And when “the straightforward application of canons of
statutory construction removes certain claims from that slate,” such
as challenges to the validity of a conviction or sentence, “a district
court may not consider them.” United States v. Fernandez, 104 F.4th
420, 431–32 (2d Cir. 2024), cert. granted, No. 24-556, 2025 WL 1496486
(U.S. May 27, 2025).
This Court reviews the denial of a compassionate release
motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Halvon, 26 F.4th

-- 11 of 18 --

12
566, 569 (2d Cir. 2022). “A district court has abused its discretion if it
has (1) based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, (2) made a
clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or (3) rendered a
decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible
decisions.” Keitt, 21 F.4th at 71 (quoting Saladino, 7 F.4th at 122).
A. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion.
The district court’s decision to deny Rodriguez’s motion for
compassionate release was amply justified. While we agree with the
district court that Rodriguez has failed to identify any extraordinary
and compelling reasons that warrant his release, we need not dwell
on that issue because we conclude that the district court’s § 3553(a)
analysis provided an adequate and independent basis for denying a
sentence reduction. It bears repeating that a district court has broad
discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors in the context of a motion
for compassionate release, and we owe that analysis considerable
deference. See Keitt, 21 F.4th at 72; see also Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189
(“[W]e will not substitute our own judgment for the district court’s on
the question of what is sufficient to meet the § 3553(a) considerations
in any particular case.”). As the district court noted, Rodriguez is
responsible for two murders, including the murder of a fourteen-
year-old child. The extreme seriousness of that conduct alone would
have been a sufficient basis to determine that the § 3553(a) factors
weighed against a sentence reduction. The district court also noted,
however, that as of the time of its decision Rodriguez had committed
no fewer than thirty disciplinary infractions while in custody. The
Probation Department’s Presentence Report reveals that those

-- 12 of 18 --

13
infractions included possessing a dangerous weapon, fighting, and
assault. In light of Rodriguez’s pattern of misconduct in prison, along
with the seriousness of his offense conduct, the district court
determined that the need to protect the public was a second factor
that weighed against a sentence reduction. This determination amply
supported the district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors
foreclosed a grant of compassionate release.
B. Rodriguez’s Appeal Is Frivolous.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) provides that when a case is brought
in forma pauperis (“IFP”), “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or
malicious.” “An appeal is frivolous when it ‘lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.’” Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440, 442 (2d Cir. 2007)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325).
Rodriguez’s appeal raises no arguable basis for reversing the
district court’s decision. In fact, none of his arguments on appeal
directly challenge the § 3553(a) analysis. In any event, his arguments
lack any non-frivolous basis in law or in fact. For one thing, his
collateral attack on the validity of his sentence is not properly raised
in a compassionate release motion. See Fernandez, 104 F.4th at 427
(explaining that “the validity of a conviction or sentence can be
challenged only on direct appeal or collateral review”). The merits-
based challenges that he presented to the district court had, moreover,
already been adjudicated and rejected. Accordingly, even if a district
court were generally permitted to consider this type of claim in the

-- 13 of 18 --

14
context of compassionate-release proceedings, the particular
arguments that Rodriguez proffered against his sentence had already
been found baseless. They would not, therefore, have provided an
appropriate basis for reducing his sentence in this case.
His remaining arguments fare no better. The district court
rejected Rodriguez’s claim that he was being exposed to radon at USP
Big Sandy because he presented no evidence to support the claim
(which is still the case) and the prison warden, in expressly denying
the claim, explained that the prison’s air filtration system complied
with all legal requirements. In any event, Rodriguez is now housed
at a different facility, so this argument is moot, see Thompson v.
Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008). The court also carefully
considered Rodriguez’s medical condition and found, based on his
medical records and the representations of the Probation Department,
that he was receiving regular medical attention and that he was able
to function within his prison facility. Further, Rodriguez did not
request a hearing before the district court, and he cites no authority
for the proposition that the court had an obligation to hold one. See
United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding in
the analogous context of a § 3582(c)(2) motion that “[a] court’s
resolution of a motion for a sentence reduction does not necessarily
require a full resentencing hearing”). Rodriguez’s final argument—
that the district court improperly relied on the Probation
Department’s second addendum to the Presentence Report because
he never received a copy of it and thus had no chance to object to it—
also fails. Even assuming arguendo that Rodriguez never received a

-- 14 of 18 --

15
copy of that addendum, he does not seriously contest any of the
information from that document that the district court cited in its
decision.
Because Rodriguez’s appeal raises no arguable basis for
reversing the district court’s decision to deny compassionate release
on the ground that the § 3553(a) factors foreclosed such relief, we
dismiss the appeal as frivolous.2
Our opinion in United States v. Fleming, 5 F.4th 189 (2d Cir.
2021), does not preclude us from deciding in appropriate cases that
an IFP appeal is frivolous. In Fleming, although we acknowledged
that the defendant faced “an uphill battle” in his appeal of the district
court’s denial of compassionate release, we concluded that the appeal
was not “so patently frivolous as to warrant affirmance without the
benefit of full briefing.” Id. at 194. But our determination that
Fleming’s appeal was not frivolous, given the particular
circumstances of his case, does not mean that no appeals from denials
of compassionate release are frivolous.
Our Court has regularly sorted the wheat from the chaff,
sometimes dismissing IFP appeals from denials of compassionate
release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and sometimes
allowing them to proceed. Even after Fleming, we have deemed a
number of such appeals to be frivolous and consequently dismissed
2 Because we dismiss Rodriguez’s appeal, his motion for appointment of
counsel is denied as moot. And because a COA is required only on a habeas
appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253, his motion for a COA is also denied.

-- 15 of 18 --

16
them without full briefing. See, e.g., United States v. Jaber, No. 24-2035,
Dkt. No. 25 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2025) (dismissing IFP appeal from a denial
of compassionate release as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); United
States v. Haskins, No. 23-7528, Dkt. No. 37 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2024)
(same); United States v. Anthony, No. 23-6089, Dkt. No. 42 (2d Cir. Aug.
3, 2023) (same). We will undoubtedly continue to follow this course
in appropriate cases, which conforms with our usual practice for IFP
appeals more generally. See McGann v. Comm'r, 96 F.3d 28, 30 (2d Cir.
1996) (noting the Court’s “normal practice, where an appellant seeks
[IFP] status on appeal, of making an initial determination of whether
the appeal surmounts the standard of ‘frivolousness’”). Indeed,
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires a court to dismiss an IFP action or appeal if
the court determines that it is frivolous. See Alvarez v. Garland, 33 F.4th
626, 637 (2d Cir. 2022) (explaining that a court is “statutorily obliged
to dismiss” a frivolous action or appeal); Brown v. Sage, 941 F.3d 655,
659 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting that while the original IFP statute gave
courts discretion to dismiss frivolous cases, Congress amended the
statute in 1996 to require dismissal of such cases out of a deep concern
that “frivolous and vexatious prisoner lawsuits both overburdened
the judiciary and were unnecessarily costly for defendants”).
Moreover, Fleming in no way diminished the level of deference
that we owe a district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors in
deciding a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A). In fact, we had no occasion
in that opinion to address the scope of a district court’s discretion to
decide such a motion. Where we did address the issue, such as in
United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371 (2d Cir. 2021), and in Keitt, we

-- 16 of 18 --

17
emphasized just how broad that discretion is. Those cases made clear
that a district court may “den[y] a defendant’s motion under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) in sole reliance on the applicable § 3553(a) factors.”
Keitt, 21 F.4th at 69; see also Jones, 17 F.4th at 374 (“a district court’s
reasonable evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors is an alternative and
independent basis for denial of compassionate release” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). In light of our holdings in those cases, an
appellant faces a heavy burden in challenging a district court’s denial
of compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors.3
This is an appropriate case for dismissal. A determination of
frivolousness, of course, is necessarily case-specific, and “we must be
careful not to conflate ‘[e]asy cases’ with ‘inarguable or fanciful ones,’
as only the latter warrant dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” Id.
(quoting United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13–14 (2d Cir. 2010)). We
consider each appeal on its own merits and distinguish between cases
that raise potentially meritorious arguments that would benefit from
full briefing (e.g., where the defendant contends that he suffers from
terminal illness and no longer presents a danger to the community)
and those that do not (e.g., where the defendant merely attacks the
legitimacy of his conviction, an issue reserved for direct appeal or a
habeas petition). Here, we have no difficulty concluding that
3 Indeed, in resolving Fleming’s fully briefed appeal after Jones and Keitt
had been decided, we affirmed the district court’s denial of compassionate release,
reasoning that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors, “which provide an independent ground on which we may
affirm.” United States v. Fleming, No. 20-1776-CR, 2022 WL 17543147, at *1 (2d Cir.
Dec. 9, 2022) (citing Jones, 17 F.4th at 374).

-- 17 of 18 --

18
Rodriguez’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, for the
reasons discussed above.
III. Conclusion
In summary, we hold:
1. The district court acted well within its broad discretion by
denying Rodriguez’s motion for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) on the ground that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors weighed against a sentence reduction.
2. Rodriguez’s appeal raises no arguable basis for reversing the
district court’s decision.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), DENY Rodriguez’s motion for
appointment of counsel as moot, and DENY his motion for a
certificate of appealability, which is required only on a habeas appeal.

-- 18 of 18 --