Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arlene MARTINEZ, 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 970
Docket Number: No. 16-10324
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arlene MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 970–971

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.