
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DEMMONS, a.k.a. James Anderson, a.k.a. Craig, A.k.a. James Demmond, a.k.a. Rupert Demmons, a.k.a. James Hughes, a.k.a. James David Hughes, a.k.a. James Paul Rubert, a.k.a. James David Summers, a.k.a. Van Demmons, a.k.a. Van Dillion, a.k.a. James Van Huges, a.k.a. Van Wright, a.k.a. Craig Wright, a.k.a. James Wright, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Fred W. Slaughter, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of The U.S. Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, 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

James Demmons 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.

Demmons contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. However, as Demmons concedes, he was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32. Because Demmons cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need not consider his arguments related to his eligibility for a sentence modification under the second prong of section 3582(c)(2), including the application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

Demmons also contends that the denial of a sentence modification based on the Fair Sentencing Act violated his right to equal protection of the law. As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d 1225, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam).

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