
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lashawn Jermaine JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
    J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lashawn Jermaine Johnson appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johnson contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the modified sentence and the extent to which it considered his post-conviction rehabilitation efforts. The district court considered the motion for a reduced sentence, which included Johnson’s post-conviction rehabilitation arguments, as well as the relevant Guidelines policy statement and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Like the two prior sentences the district court imposed, the court again imposed a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range. Given the nature and seriousness of the danger Johnson poses to the community, in light of the fact that he possessed a firearm, distributed a large quantity of drugs, and twice threatened to shoot people in connection with his drug transactions, the explanation for the sentence is sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation can be inferred from the record).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     