*1 Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Herman William Rael 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 *2 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rael contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson , 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Rael was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson , 583 F.3d at 731. Further, insofar as Rael contends that the district court erred when it determined that he was a career offender, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50133
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).