
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Tyrone RICHARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30053
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed September 29, 2017
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Bryan R. Whittaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Chad Wright, Attorney, Hooks & Wright, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Tyrone Richard 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, and we affirm.

Richard contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 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). The record makes clear that the district court imposed Richard’s sentence, and later reduced Richard’s sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Richard’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, contrary to Richard’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider his argument that a reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Richard’s motion for remand or summary reversal is denied.

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