NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10227
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00863-RCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FABIAN DAVID MONGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Fabian David Monge appeals from the district court’s order granting in part
Monge’s 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.
The district court concluded that Monge was eligible for a sentence
*
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).
reduction under Amendment 782 and reduced his sentence from 151 months to 144
months. Monge contends that the district court failed to address his arguments in
favor of a greater reduction. The record reflects that the district court considered
Monge’s arguments and adequately explained its decision. See United States v.
Carty, 520 U.S. 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Monge further contends that, in light of his post-sentencing conduct, the
district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence to the low end
of the new sentencing range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that no further reduction was warranted in light of Monge’s
managerial role as a “kingpin” in the marijuana distribution enterprise, the large
quantities of drugs he supplied over a long period of time, and his post-sentencing
conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d
1151, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10227