OPINION
In November 2009, Gregory Douglas was indicted for passing counterfeit United States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. In April 2010, he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to consider moving for a downward departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in exchange for Douglas’s cooperation. However, after Douglas made a statement about his involvement in the counterfeiting operation, the Government determined that his cooperation was of little value, and declined to move for a downward departure. At sentencing, Douglas moved for a variance based on the same cooperation, which the Court denied. He was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Douglas appeals the denial of his motion. We now affirm.1
Douglas argues that the District Court erred by failing to take into account his cooperation during the sentencing hearing. We disagree. It is clear from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the District Court was aware of its discretion to grant a variance. Douglas’s attorney pointed this out to the Court several times, noting that it could consider Douglas’s assistance even though the Government de-*123dined to make a motion for a downward departure. App. 127-129.2 The prosecutor similarly recognized the Court’s discretion. Id. at 129.3 Thus, although the Court ultimately declined to grant a variance in favor of Douglas, it was aware of its discretion to do so.
Moreover, the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Douglas’s motion. The Court rejected Douglas’s variance argument, stating that “I don’t think [Douglas’s honesty was that much assistance to the Government, so we’re not going to be able to make any adjustment for his assistance in this prosecution....” App. 124. Additionally, it stated that it was concerned about the total number of Douglas’s victims and his recidivism. Ultimately, it imposed a sentence of 33 months, at the low end of the Guidelines’ range (33 to 41 months), which it noted was consistent with the sentence imposed on similarly situated defendants. This was not error.
For these reasons, we affirm.