PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The appellant challenges the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, urging that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for a sentencing reduction. He asserts that his sentence was tied to a guidelines range as his plea agreement stipulated only a maximum term, arrived at after the applicable guidelines range was calculated. He further contends that the

No. 16-50408

district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion.

As the district court determined, appellant was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). Rather, the district court sentenced appellant to 120 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 534-40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016). ^[1] Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction. See Freeman , 564 U.S. at 534-40 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); Benitez , 822 F.3d at 809-12; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2111; United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas , 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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

[1] Recognizing that his claim is foreclosed by Benitez, appellant nevertheless raises to preserve for possible further review the argument that a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction is available to a defendant who pleaded guilty pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement in any case where the guidelines range was a relevant part of the analytic framework used by the district court to determine the sentence. 2