22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T471,MEMORANDUM James Stanley Hatley appeals 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 . We review the denial of a section 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm. Hatley contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence based on the substantial assistance he previously provided and his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. We disagree. The court understood that the Guidelines range had been lowered, but concluded that the original 60-month sentence, which was below even the recalculated range, was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors. See id. at 1158-60 . Contrary to Hatley’s suggestion, the Guidelines did not require the court to grant a reduction comparable to the reduction that it originally granted. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n. 3. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49e,

MEMORANDUM

James Stanley Hatley appeals 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 . We review the denial of a section 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.

Hatley contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence based on the substantial assistance he previously provided and his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. We disagree. The court understood that the Guidelines range had been lowered, but concluded that the original 60-month sentence, which was below even the recalculated range, was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors. See id. at 1158-60 . Contrary to Hatley’s suggestion, the Guidelines did not require the court to grant a reduction comparable to the reduction that it originally granted. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n. 3.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.