
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Joseph VOTH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30084
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    Colin M. Stephens, Attorney, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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

William Joseph Voth, Jr., 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.

Voth 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 Voth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Voth is, therefore, ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017).

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