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:T459,MEMORANDUM Joe Willie Hooks appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Hooks contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which changed the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This contention fails. Amendment 750 did not alter the Guidelines range applicable to the drug quantity used to determine Hooks’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750. Because Amendment 750 did not lower Hooks’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.2009). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hooks’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying his motion. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48b,

MEMORANDUM

Joe Willie Hooks appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582 (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Hooks contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which changed the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. This contention fails. Amendment 750 did not alter the Guidelines range applicable to the drug quantity used to determine Hooks’s sentence. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750. Because Amendment 750 did not lower Hooks’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir.2009).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hooks’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons for denying his motion.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.