
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando CLAVERIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2010.
    Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Daniel R. Schiess, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rene Valladares, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:97-cr-00080-PMP.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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

Fernando Claveria-Martinez appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when ruling on his motion for sentence reduction. To the extent that Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court erred by failing to treat the amended Sentencing Guidelines range as advisory, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this contention is foreclosed by Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). To the extent that Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court failed to consider the section 3553(a) factors when determining whether the authorized reduction was warranted, this contention is belied by the record.

Claveria-Martinez also contends that a reduction in his criminal history category is appropriate because the district court improperly relied on his July 1995 arrest when departing upward at the original sentencing hearing. This contention fails because this aspect of Claveria-Martinez’s sentence was “not affected by the Commission’s amendment to [U.S.S.G.] § 2D1.1 [and therefore is] outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2).” Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2693-94.

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