
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio HERRERA REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50169
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph Orabona, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Marks, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Herrera Reyes appeals 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.

Herrera Reyes contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range and by declining to reduce his sentence. The record reflects that the court determined that it had discretion to reduce Herrera Reyes’s sentence because he was sentenced based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The court then considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and based. on those factors, declined to exercise its discretion to lower Herrera Reyes’s sentence. Contrary to Herrera Reyes’s contention, the court satisfied its procedural obligations. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, in light of the nature of Herrera Reyes’s offense and his criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera Reyes’s motion. See id.

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