UNITED STATES v. GONZALES (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Faustino Gonzales appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court assumed that Gonzales was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction due to Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, but concluded that a reduction was not warranted under the circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Gonzales first contends that the court abused its discretion by relying on a 2012-2013 prison disciplinary record to find that he posed a danger to public safety. The district court was permitted to consider such post-sentencing conduct when ruling on Gonzalez's motion, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B), and Gonzalez has not demonstrated that the district court's factual findings or inferences drawn from those records were clearly erroneous, see United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017).

Gonzales also argues that the court failed to (1) consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) address explicitly Gonzales's argument that he did not pose a risk to public safety. It is apparent from the court's statements and the record as a whole that the court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, as well as Gonzales's arguments, in rendering its decision. The court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation of its reasoning. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1966, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018) (“[T]he judge need not provide a lengthy explanation if the context and the record make clear that the judge had a reasoned basis for [its decision]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.