
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romuald Andreyevich VOYTSEKHOVSKIY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed April 29, 2016.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Of-fice of the Us Attorney, Billings, Mt, Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S., Usmi-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Fdmt-Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missou-la, MT, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Romuald Andreyevich Voytsekhovskiy appeals 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 reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Voytsekhovskiy contends that the district court had authority to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 even though his Guidelines range was not lowered by the amendment. We disagree. Voytsekhovskiy’s equitable arguments notwithstanding, a district court may only lower a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) when the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), cmt. n. 1(A); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Thus, the district court properly denied Voytsekhovskiy’s motion.

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