NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10536 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00383-MCE v. MEMORANDUM* FRANCISCO MIGUEL ANGEL NAJERA- GORDILLO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Miguel Angel Najera-Gordillo 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. We review discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney,

* 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). 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

It is undisputed that Najera-Gordillo is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. The district court concluded, however, that a reduction was not warranted in this case. Najera-Gordillo contends that the court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion because a lower sentence would be sufficient to satisfy all of the relevant sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Najera-Gordillo’s motion in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Najera-Gordillo’s significant prison disciplinary record, his long and violent criminal history and career offender status, his failure to be deterred, and the danger he poses to the public. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013).

We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Najera-Gordillo’s reply brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-10536