
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50049
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, David Daniel Leshner, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Todd W. Robinson, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Frank Reyes, Pro Se
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Frank Reyes appeals pro se 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.

Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Reyes’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (section 3582(e)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     