NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2744 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:12-cr-01259-DKW-2 v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID STEIDELL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

David Steidell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).1 We have

* 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).

The district court denied Steidell’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) in the same order. Steidell waived any challenge to that denial by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Though the district court agreed that Steidell was eligible to be resentenced under Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, it declined to reduce his sentence because the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support such a reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (describing the two-step process for analyzing § 3582(c)(2) motions). Steidell contends that the court erred by failing to account for his rehabilitation or explain why his rehabilitation was insufficient to support relief.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2021). The court acknowledged and commended Steidell’s rehabilitative efforts, describing some of his accomplishments in detail.

It nonetheless concluded that Steidell’s efforts were insufficient to overcome the factors supporting the original sentence. The court’s explanation for its decision was sufficient, and Steidell has not shown any abuse of discretion in the court’s conclusion that relief was not warranted. See id. AFFIRMED.

2 24-2744