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:T4b8,MEMORANDUM Herman William Rael 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. Rael contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Rael was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731 . Further, insofar as Rael contends that the district court erred when it determined that he was a career offender, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. 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:T4e5,

MEMORANDUM

Herman William Rael 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.

Rael contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Rael was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731 . Further, insofar as Rael contends that the district court erred when it determined that he was a career offender, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. 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.