*1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Melisa Zuniga, federal prisoner # 47145-177, appeals the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce her sentence based on Amendment 794 of the Guidelines. She argues that the amendment is a clarifying amendment and should be applied retroactively.

This court reviews de novo whether a district court has authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 *2 Case: 16-11593 Document: 00513994483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2017

No. 16-11593

(5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guidelines amendments as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Amendment 794 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) as an amendment for which a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) may be granted. See § 1B1.10(d). Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that it did not have the authority to reduce Zuniga’s sentence based on Amendment 794. See Jones , 596 F.3d at 276; United States v. Doublin , 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.