*1 Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Arlene Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

Martinez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying her *2 motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly interpreted and applied U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in considering Martinez’s motion and did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez a sentence reduction based on her criminal history, her role in the offense, and her post-offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-10324

[*] 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).