Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Javier LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 15-10363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Javier LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Javier LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10363
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attomey-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlos Javier Lopez, Pro Se.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Carlos Javier Lopez appeals from the district court's order denying 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.
Lopez argues that the district court erred by failing to consider and address his non-frivolous arguments in favor 'of a reduced sentence and by denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his post-sentencing prison disciplinary record. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties' arguments. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) ("The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel."); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, considering the 18 U.S.C; § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez's prison disciplinary record and the need to protect the public, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez's motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.