
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-30095
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 16, 2018
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Leif Johnson, Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jaime Moreno, Pro Se
    Before: LEAYY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaime Moreno appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

In the district court, Moreno moved for a sentence reduction in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court correctly concluded that this claim does not provide a basis for relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentenc-ing proceeding, but rather authorizes the district court to modify a sentence in the “limited circumstance[ ]” where a defendant who was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered).

On appeal, Moreno raises several new arguments, including claims challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the length of his sentence. These claims are not properly before us, see United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001), and are outside the scope of a section 3582(c)(2) motion, see Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

To the extent Moreno seeks to recall the mandate in one of his previous appeals, that request may not be raised in this appeal.

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