
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10498
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    Filed August 1, 2016
    Jason Hitt, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez, LaSalle Detention Facility, Jena, LA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez 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.

Domarco-Sanchez 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. Lerdear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Domarco-Sanchez is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Lerdear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Domarco-Sanchez’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

To the extent that Domarco-Sanchez seeks to challenge his sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding).

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