
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian David MONGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10227
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Daily Miskell, Assistant' U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Francisco Leon, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fabian David Monge appeals from the district court’s order granting in part Monge’s 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.

The district court concluded that Monge was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and reduced his sentence from 151 months to 144 months. Monge contends that the district court failed to address his arguments in favor of a greater reduction. The record reflects that the district court considered Monge’s arguments and adequately explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Monge further contends that, in light of his post-sentencing conduct, the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence to the low end of the new sentencing range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no further reduction was warranted in light of Monge’s managerial role as a “kingpin” in the marijuana distribution enterprise, the large quantities of drugs he supplied over a long period of time, and his post-sentencing conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth' Circuit Rule 36-3.
     