
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman William RAEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50133
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Ajay Krishnamurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Steve Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Herman William Rael, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Herman William Rael 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, and we affirm.

Rael contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Rael was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. Further, insofar as Rael contends that the district court erred when it determined that he was a career offender, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

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