Case Information
*1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Jaime Guerrero, federal prisoner # 46020-379, filed in the district court *2 Case: 16-41150 Document: 00514043086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2017
No. 16-41150
a pro se motion, purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting that Amend- ment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines demonstrated that the district court erred by not applying a four-level reduction for his minor role in the offense. Guerrero, again pro se , appeals the district court’s construction of that motion as a motion for sentence reduction via 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In his direct appeal, Guerrero did not challenge the denial of a minor- role reduction. See United States v. Guerrero, No. 14-40555, 600 F. App’x 936 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Claims of misapplication of the guidelines are not cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Williamson , 183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). In cer- tain circumstances, the district court may reduce a sentence based on an amendment. See § 3582(c)(2). In light of the relief Guerrero sought and the unavailability of relief under § 2255, the court did not err in construing the motion as a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 381- 82 (2003).
We review de novo whether the district court had authority to reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guideline amend- ments that are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). As Guerrero concedes, Amendment 794 is not listed there, so the court did not err in denying a reduction. See Jones , 596 F.3d at 276.
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.