22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T50b,MEMORANDUM Olance Antjuan Upton appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed in the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Upton contends that the district court erred at the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding by: (1) failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence' imposed; (2) failing to address adequately the 100:1 crack/powder disparity; and (3) imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). These contentions are unpersuasive because § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not implicate the interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Moreover, the district court complied with the two-step inquiry set forth in § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 2691-92. To the extent that Upton contends that U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) lacks administrative validity, his contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128 , 1131— 32 (9th Cir.2011). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53d,

MEMORANDUM

Olance Antjuan Upton appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed in the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Upton contends that the district court erred at the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding by: (1) failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence' imposed; (2) failing to address adequately the 100:1 crack/powder disparity; and (3) imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). These contentions are unpersuasive because § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not implicate the interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Moreover, the district court complied with the two-step inquiry set forth in § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 2691-92.

To the extent that Upton contends that U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) lacks administrative validity, his contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128 , 1131— 32 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

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