PER CURIAM:

Antonio Suazo Pineda appeals the district court’s order denying his third 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. In this motion as in his previous motions, Pineda sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses. Noting again that Pineda was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because he was sentenced to the statutory minimum term for his drug offense, the district court denied relief.

In United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010), we held that a district court lacks authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Under Goodwyn , Pineda had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of Amendment 782. See id. at 235-36. Once the district court ruled on Pineda’s entitlement to relief under Amendment 782, it lacked authority to consider subsequent relief based on the same Amendment, either by way of a third § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for reconsideration of the initial order. While we recently determined in United States v. May , 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) that “this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below,” the Government properly preserved the issue by asserting the prohibition before the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief on Pineda’s third § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal *3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED