UNITED STATES v. PARKER (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Edward Parker 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.

Parker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments that he had demonstrated rehabilitation in prison, and that application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors would support a sentence at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, given that the court had imposed a sentence at the bottom of the original Guidelines range. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered Parker's arguments and adequately explained its reasons for declining to reduce his sentence. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1966-68, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2018).

Parker next contends that his unmodified sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the amended Guidelines range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Parker's sentence. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The 360-month sentence, which is within the amended Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159-60.

AFFIRMED.