
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lechaun D. BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50497
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 2, 2017
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S., Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S., Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S., Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S., Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Lechaun D. Baker, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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

Lechaun D. Baker 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.

Baker 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). Contrary to Baker’s contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court determined that his offense involved 8.94 kilograms of actual methamphetamine. Even after Amendment 782, the base offense level for that drug amount is 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)(2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Baker’s applicable guideline range, the district court correctly concluded that Baker is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.

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