
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Reed LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30225
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    
      Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE — Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joshua Reed Lewis 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 had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Lewis contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly concluded that Lewis is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Contrary to Lewis’s contention, the application of section lB1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 555 n.9 (9th Cir. 2016) (relying on Waters to reject Ex Post Facto claim). Lewis’s remaining constitutional and statutory challenges to section lB1.10(b)(2) are foreclosed. See United States v. Padilla-Diaz, 862 F.3d 856, 860-63 (9th Cir. 2017) (section lB1.10(b)(2) does not violate a defendant’s right to equal protection or due process, or imper-missibly conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2014) (section lB1.10(b)(2) does not violate separation of powers).

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