*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Vincent Martinez appeals from the district court’s order granting in part 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 Martinez contends that he is entitled to a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the nature of Martinez’s offense and the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Martinez’s sentence to the high-end of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i); United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately addressed his arguments for a further reduction and explained its sentencing decision. See United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1009, 11 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED. 16-30032

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).