[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 13969 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:15

- cr - 00314

- KOB

- JHE

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
NAKEISHA HALL, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (May 17, 2021) Before MARTIN , NEWSOM and BRANCH , Circu it Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-13969 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 1 of 42 Nakeisha Hall appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(1)(A)

. She argues that the district court erred by limiting its analysis of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to those in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13’s policy statement and failed to provide sufficient reasoning for meaningful appellate review

. After careful review, we affirm.
I In 2015, Hall pleaded guilty to four counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1344, 1349, 3293 ; theft of government funds, 18 U.S.C. § 641 ; aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A ; and unauthorized access to a protected computer, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), (c)(2)(B). The district court sentenced her to a total 110 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. In July 2020, 4 5 months into her sentence and in the wake of the COVID

- 19 pandemic, Hall filed a pro se motion for compassionate release. She argued that she was eligible for compassionate release because she was at a high risk of contracting the virus and had underlying medical conditions. The district c ourt denied her motion, and she now appeals. 1

1 We review motions for compassionate release under § 3582( c )(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Harris , 989 F.3d 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows imprope r procedures in making the

USCA11 Case: 20-13969 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 2 of 43 II On appeal, Hall argues that the district court erred by considering the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. She contends that this was legal error because that policy state ment is no longer applicable after the enactment of the First Step Act of 2018, which amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow prisoners, rather than just the Bureau of Prisons, to file motions for a reduced sentence

. She also argues that the district court didn’t adequately explain its denial of her motion. The district court was permitted to reduce Harris’ s sentence if it found, among other things, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” it. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 contains the policy statement for sentence modifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) , requiring a district court to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction and that the defendant is not a danger to the community

. The commentary to that policy statement lists “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for granting a sentencing reduction , including considerations related to medical conditions

. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment (n.1)

. This Court recently held that, notwithstanding the First Step Act’s amendments to § 3582(c)(1)(A), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 remains applicable to

determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. United States v. Khan , 794 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015).

USCA11 Case: 20-13969 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 3 of 44 § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, whether filed by the BOP or the prisoner. United States v. Bryant , No. 19

- 14267, 2021 WL 1827158, at *1 (11th Cir. May 7, 2021)

. Here, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying Hall’s motion

. W e held in Bryant that § 1B1.13 “ is an applicable policy statement that governs all motions under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) ” and, a ccording ly, that “ district courts may not reduce a sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) unless a reduction would be consistent with 1B1.13. ” Id . at *13. The district court correctly applied § 1B1.13 and reasonably found that that neither Hall’s medical condition s, which it found were controlled or in remission and did not impair her ability to provide self

- care, nor the general threat of COVID

- 19 were sufficiently severe to constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
Moreover , the district court allowed for meaningful appellate review, as it noted Hall’s arguments, its findings, and the reasoning for its findings. See Long v. United States , 626 F.3d 1167, 1170 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[W] e have long required the district courts and administrative boards to facilitate meaningful appellate review by developing adequate factual records and making sufficiently clear findings as to the key issues. ”)

. Specifically, the court’s discussion of the § 3553(a) factors was sufficient , and the c ourt was not required to explicitly consider or discuss each factor

. S ee United States v. Kuhlman , 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013 )

. AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 20-13969 Date Filed: 05/17/2021 Page: 4 of 4