
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Shane TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Laura Bissett Weiss, Assistant U.S., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson,- Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeremy Shane Turner 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 de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, see United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Turner contends that the district court erred by denying his motion without addressing his arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. He also contends that a reduction is warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. These contentions fail. Turner is ineligible for a reduction because Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines did not have the effect of lowering his guideline range due to the operation of the statutory mandatory minimum. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) & cmt. n. 1(A) (a reduction is not authorized if an amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of a statutory mandatory minimum); § 5Gl.l(b) (where a mandatory minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the mandatory minimum “shall be the guideline sentence”). Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Turner’s sentence, it had no cause to consider Turner’s arguments based on the section 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

We decline to consider Turner’s equal protection claim because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n. 9 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     