
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Damar SHIRLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
    Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kari Elisabeth Hong, Law Office of Kari E. Hong, Oakland, CA, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, 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

Michael Damar Shirley 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 district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Shirley contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. This contention fails. Notwithstanding the fact that Shirley was sentenced under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by reference to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the “applicable” Guidelines range in his case was U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the Career Offender Guideline. See United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 811-12 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 824, 187 L.Ed.2d 688 (2013). Accordingly, the district court lacked authority to reduce Shirley’s sentence. See id. at 812.

In light of our decision, we need not reach the government’s contention that Shirley waived his right to file a section 3582 motion-in his plea agreement.

Shirley’s unopposed motion to file a late reply brief is granted, and the Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted on July 14, 2014.

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