
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raphael Glappion PINKNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10193.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Amber Marie Craig, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. - Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esq., Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the' U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Raphael Glappion Pinkney, Pekin, IL, pro se.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raphael Glappion Pinkney 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.

Pinkney 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. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Pinkney is not entitled to 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). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii). The district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

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