Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0970-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arlene MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10324
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Thomas Scott Hartzell, Attorney, T.S. Hartzell, Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arlene Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

Martinez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly interpreted and applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in considering Martinez’s motion and did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez a sentence reduction based on her criminal history, her role in the offense, and her post-offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.