Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-27
Citations: 678 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 16-30032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30032
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 27, 2017
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—-Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brian K. Gallik, Esquire, Attorney, Gal-lik & Bremer, P.C., Bozeman, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vincent Martinez appeals from the district court's order granting in part his 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 he is entitled to a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the nature of Martinez's offense and the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Martinez's sentence to the high-end of' the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Martinez's contention, the district court adequately addressed his arguments for a further reduction and explained its sentencing decision. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,