*1 Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Darron Dimitri Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court agreed with the parties that Ross was eligible for a *2 sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. It determined, however, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in Ross’s 72-month sentence. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (describing the two-step process for evaluating a § 3582(c)(2) motion). We review this conclusion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013).
Contrary to Ross’s claim, the court acknowledged his rehabilitative efforts, progress towards restitution, and lack of disciplinary violations. It nevertheless concluded that “ a reduction in sentence is inappropriate given the nature of defendant’s offense and the impact on his victims.” The court reasonably balanced the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-1366
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).