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:T502,MEMORANDUM George Alberto Beltran 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. Beltran contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a. defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Beltran is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 960 (b)(1)(B). Thus, the district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095 . Beltran’s additional claims are not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T534,

MEMORANDUM

George Alberto Beltran 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.

Beltran contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a. defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Beltran is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 960 (b)(1)(B). Thus, the district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095 .

Beltran’s additional claims are not cognizable under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 , 130 S.Ct. 2683 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

AFFIRMED.

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