MEMORANDUM **

Bao Lu appeals from the district court’s decision following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lu contends that his life-time term of imprisonment is unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account his youth and post-sentencing rehabilitation. The district court conducted a proper Ameline review, see United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2007), and it “properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion” following United, States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the district court was not required to consider Lu’s post-sentencing rehabilitation. See United States v. Bernardo Sanchez, 569 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.