NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10009

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Guerro,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Socorro Loya-Chavez 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.

Loya-Chavez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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). Loya-Chavez 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, and he is ineligible

for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The

Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result.

Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his

sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing

rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district

court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-10009