*1 Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lewis Lynn Mitchell 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.
Mitchell contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under *2 Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear , 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Mitchell was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that was lowered by Amendment 782 and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson , 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
Mitchell’s contention that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Waters , 648 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30169
[*] 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). Mitchell’s request for oral argument is denied.