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:T424,MEMORANDUM Arlene Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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. Martinez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly interpreted and applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in considering Martinez’s motion and did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez a sentence reduction based on her criminal history, her role in the offense, and her post-offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T451,

MEMORANDUM

Arlene Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

Martinez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly interpreted and applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in considering Martinez’s motion and did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez a sentence reduction based on her criminal history, her role in the offense, and her post-offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

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