NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30091
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00153-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS BECERRA-ESCATEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Becerra-Escatel 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Becerra-Escatel’s request
for oral argument is denied.
Becerra-Escatel first contends that the district court failed to explain
adequately its reasons for denying his request for a sentence reduction, including
its reasons for rejecting his mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the
district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and the parties’ arguments.
Though brief, the court’s explanation for its denial of the motion was adequate.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(explanation is sufficient if it permits meaningful appellate review); United States
v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not
required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting
every argument made by counsel.”).
Becerra-Escatel next contends that, in light of his efforts at rehabilitation and
the purpose behind the amendment that reduced his Guidelines range, the district
court erred by denying his motion. Considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Becerra-
Escatel’s in-custody disciplinary record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied his motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728
F.3d 1151, 1155, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30091