
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando CASACA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10382
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Marc A. Wallenstein, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Luis Fernando Casaca, Pro Se.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Fernando Casaca 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Casaca contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Casaca is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 cjid not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. To the extent that Casaca seeks to challenge the sentencing court’s original calculation of his Guidelines range or to otherwise have his sentence reduced in light of mitigating factors, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged errors committed at the original sentencing hearing cannot be corrected under section 3582(c)(2), which does not permit a plénary resentencing proceeding).

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