Court Opinion

ID: 4167979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-11 20:04:10.744763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:59.345602
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 11 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-10324

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:04-cr-02244-CKJ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
ARLENE MARTINEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 8, 2017**

Before:      REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      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

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.1(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.

                                          2                                    16-10324