Lopez

MEMORANDUM **

John Joe Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence. Because appellant’s November 24, 2004, filing in the district court included a request for a cer *527 tificate of appealability, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 528 (9th Cir.1990).

Appellant’s claim raised in the district court regarding the applicability of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to his sentence is foreclosed by United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120-21 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

It is not clear from the record whether the district court recharacterized appellant’s pro se motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. If it did, then the district court failed to warn appellant “that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on second or successive motions.” See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s pro se motion, filed in the district court on August 16,…