Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perfecto Acevedo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 690 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 16-30075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perfecto Acevedo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perfecto Acevedo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30075
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 11, 2017
Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Terence Michael Ryan, Attorney, Terence Ryan Law Office, Spokane, WA, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Perfecto Acevedo Sanchez 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.
Sanchez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Sanchez's sentence from 210 to 189 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Sanchez's contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his arguments for a greater sentence reduction and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.