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:T475,MEMORANDUM Fernando Claveria-Martinez appeals from the district court’s denial of 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. Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court committed legal error because it did not understand the rationale behind the Fair Sentencing Act and did not follow the procedures set forth in section 3582(c)(2). The record reflects that the district court did not commit legal error and appropriately exercised its discretion to deny Claveria-Martinez’s motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010). To the extent that Claveria-Martinez renews the contention made in his last appeal that the district court erred in departing upward in criminal history category at his original sentencing, we again conclude that his argument is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a7,

MEMORANDUM

Fernando Claveria-Martinez appeals from the district court’s denial of 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.

Claveria-Martinez contends that the district court committed legal error because it did not understand the rationale behind the Fair Sentencing Act and did not follow the procedures set forth in section 3582(c)(2). The record reflects that the district court did not commit legal error and appropriately exercised its discretion to deny Claveria-Martinez’s motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).

To the extent that Claveria-Martinez renews the contention made in his last appeal that the district court erred in departing upward in criminal history category at his original sentencing, we again conclude that his argument is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

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