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:T4b7,MEMORANDUM Eddie Ray Hall 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. Hall contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines because the district court erred in concluding that his prior convictions qualified him as a career offender. We need not reach that question because the district court stated that, even if Hall were eligible for a sentence reduction, it would not grant one. We review that determination for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. Contrary to Hall’s claim, the court correctly calculated the amended Guidelines range. It explained that a reduction to a sentence within that range was not warranted, notwithstanding Hall’s positive post-sentencing conduct, in light of Hall’s criminal history and the threat he poses to the public. These were proper considerations. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4e4,

MEMORANDUM

Eddie Ray Hall 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.

Hall contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines because the district court erred in concluding that his prior convictions qualified him as a career offender. We need not reach that question because the district court stated that, even if Hall were eligible for a sentence reduction, it would not grant one. We review that determination for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. Contrary to Hall’s claim, the court correctly calculated the amended Guidelines range. It explained that a reduction to a sentence within that range was not warranted, notwithstanding Hall’s positive post-sentencing conduct, in light of Hall’s criminal history and the threat he poses to the public. These were proper considerations. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B).

AFFIRMED.

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