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:T50a,MEMORANDUM Christopher Lee Osterloth 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. Osterloth 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 record makes clear that the district court imposed Osterloth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Osterloth’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Os-terloth’s contention, the record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to his motion, consulted the relevant documents, and explained its reasons for denying the motion. AFFIRMED, This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T537,

MEMORANDUM

Christopher Lee Osterloth 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.

Osterloth 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 record makes clear that the district court imposed Osterloth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Osterloth’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Os-terloth’s contention, the record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to his motion, consulted the relevant documents, and explained its reasons for denying the motion.

AFFIRMED,

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