
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kory Allen CROSSMAN, a.k.a. Lobes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10215
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cristen C. Thayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, 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

Kory Allen Crossman 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.

Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to adequately explain its decision and respond to Cross-man’s mitigating arguments, and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court properly followed the approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that Crossman will be eligible for parole. See United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).

Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when it declined' to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the ppblic in light of his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

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