MEMORANDUM **
Demetris Edward Dean appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dean contends that the district court improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and, as a result, wrongly concluded that its discretion was limited to matters of poor health, age, and family circumstances. Dean is correct that § 1B1.13 is not binding on judicial review of § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). However, the record belies any argument that the district court viewed § 1B1.13 as binding in this case. The court did not reference or cite § 1B1.13, and there is no indication that the court improperly limited its discretion to the circumstances outlined therein. Rather, the court assumed that some of Deans arguments for a sentence reduction could be persuasive in the appropriate case, but reasonably concluded that Dean had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a reduction of his below-Guideline sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799.
AFFIRMED.