*1 Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Valle 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear , 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

*2 Valle contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Valle 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. Moreover, because the court lacked authority to reduce Valle’s sentence, it had no reason to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-10156

[*] 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).