22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d9,MEMORANDUM Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina 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 , and we affirm. Barrera-Medina contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Barrera-Medina 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 . Barrera-Medina’s challenges to the sentencing court’s drug quantity calculations are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T50b,

MEMORANDUM

Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina 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 , and we affirm.

Barrera-Medina contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Barrera-Medina 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 .

Barrera-Medina’s challenges to the sentencing court’s drug quantity calculations are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.