
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA, a.k.a. Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50470
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 25, 2017
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Carol M. Lee, Assistant U.S, Attorney, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Thomas T. Wat-Mnson, II, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Francisco Javier Garcia, Pro Se
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Javier Garcia appeals pro se 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.

Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Garcia a sentence reduction based on its determination that a reduction would pose a serious threat to the public in light of his significant criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, and thoroughly explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. 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.
     