*1 Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Fermin Gonzalez Almanzar appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Paulk , 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), we affirm.

*2 The district court reduced Almanzar’s sentence to 235 months, the bottom of the amended Guidelines range. Almanzar argues that he is eligible for a more substantial reduction because the court should have used a lower drug quantity to calculate the amended range. We disagree. The district court did not have the authority, under section 3582(c)(2), to reconsider the sentencing court’s drug quantity determination. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 825-26 (2010) (proceedings under section 3582(c)(2) are not plenary resentencings). Almanzar received the lowest sentence he could have received under section 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30065

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).