
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50440
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Eric J. Beste, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Benjamin P. Lechman, Esquire, Attorney, Lechman & Lechman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Sandoval appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for á sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, Sandoval’s release from custody did not render this appeal moot because he is currently serving a five-year term of supervised release. See United States v. D.M., 869 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2017).

Sandoval contends that the district court was required to conduct a hearing prior to ruling on the motion and that it erred by failing to do so. “A district court has broad discretion in how to adjudicate § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, including whether to hold a hearing.” United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 955 (9th Cir. 2017). The district court did not abuse its discretion here because, contrary to Sandoval’s contention, its decision was based entirely on findings rendered during Sandoval’s original sentencing hearing and the evidence in the record at that time. See id. (“When the district court does not consider any evidence outside of the record at sentencing, an evidentiary hearing will not always be necessary.”). t

The district court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Sandoval has failed to demonstrate that the district court applied the wrong law or relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013).

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