*1 Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Javier Garcia appeals pro se 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.

*2 Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Garcia a sentence reduction based on its determination that a reduction would pose a serious threat to the public in light of his significant criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot , 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, and thoroughly explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED. 15-50470

2

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).