*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Frank Reyes 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.

*2 Reyes 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear , 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Reyes’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon , 560 U.S. at 826 (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED .

2 16-50049

[*] 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).