*1 Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Patrice Lumumba Ford appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ford argues that remand is warranted for the district court to consider *2 whether to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) place Ford in a community corrections facility, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B), and whether to invite the BOP to file a motion to reduce his term of imprisonment in light of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Though pro se motions are to be liberally construed, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), not even the most liberal construction reveals these arguments in Ford’s pro se motion for a sentence reduction in the district court. Accordingly, we decline to consider them. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Issues not presented to the district court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal.” (internal citations omitted)). Furthermore, the district court properly determined, and Ford does not dispute, that Ford is not entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Pepper v. United States , 562 U.S. 476 (2011), or United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Ford’s motion for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED .

2 16-30173

[*] 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).