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:T4b0,MEMORANDUM Richard Brown Taumoepeau appeals from the district court’s order granting in part 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. Taumoepeau contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. As an initial matter, we reject the government’s argument that this appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when, after considering the nature of Tau-moepeau’s offense and his post-sentencing rehabilitation, it reduced Taumoepeau’s sentence from 480 to 345 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Tau-moepeau’s contention, the record reflects that the district court followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4dd,

MEMORANDUM

Richard Brown Taumoepeau appeals from the district court’s order granting in part 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.

Taumoepeau contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. As an initial matter, we reject the government’s argument that this appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when, after considering the nature of Tau-moepeau’s offense and his post-sentencing rehabilitation, it reduced Taumoepeau’s sentence from 480 to 345 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Tau-moepeau’s contention, the record reflects that the district court followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

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