
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto BARRAGAN, a.k.a. Luis Alberto Barragan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30058
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    
      Aine Ahmed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Panama City, FL, Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Andrea K. George, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Barragan 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, and we affirm.

Barragan contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The district court determined that Barragan was not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, rather than a Guidelines range that had been lowered by Amendment 782. It also concluded, however, that even if Barragan were eligible for a sentence reduction, he was not entitled to one under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Assuming without deciding that ora1 recent decision in United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), renders the district court’s eligibility determination erroneous, we nonetheless affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when, after evaluating Barragan’s post-sentencing conduct and his sentencing exposure at the time of his conviction, it concluded that a 150-month sentence remained appropriate. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010).

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