
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto LOPEZ-MONJARAZ, Defendant-Appellant. .
    No. 15-10228.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S., Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gilberto Lopez-Monjaraz, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY,. TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilberto Lopez-Monjaraz appeals pro se 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 the district court has 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.

Lopez-Monjaraz argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Lopez-Monjaraz is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not modify the applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673. During the sentencing hearing, the court found that LopezMonjaraz possessed with intent to distribute over five kilograms of actual methamphetamine, and calculated the resulting base offense level as 38. Amendment 782 did not lower the offense level for this quantity of actual methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).

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