*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part Zuniga-Sanchez’s 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. *2 The district court reduced Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence to 120 months, which reflects the mandatory minimum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Zuniga-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a further reduction. We review de novo a district court’s refusal to depart below the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Sykes , 658 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the mandatory minimum applies in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the district court correctly concluded that it could not reduce Zuniga-Sanchez’s sentence any further than it did. See Sykes , 658 F.3d at 1148.
Zuniga-Sanchez’s challenge to the district court’s denial of safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is not cognizable in this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (only aspects of the sentence affected by the amendment may be raised in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings).
AFFIRMED. 16-30028
2
[*] 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).