
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50448
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Christopher Wright, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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

Christopher Wright 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.

Wright contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, by failing to fully consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and by declining to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The record reflects that the court determined that it had discretion to reduce Wright’s sentence because he was sentenced based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The court then considered the section 3553(a) factors, and based on those factors, declined to exercise its discretion to lower Wright’s sentence. While Wright contends the court failed to consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation, Wright never presented evidence of such rehabilitation to the district court. Contrary to Wright’s contentions, the court satisfied its procedural obligations. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, in light of Wright’s criminal history, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright’s motion. See id. at 1095-96.

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