Eames

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Ray Eames appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) and to strike the illegal portion of his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Eames contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to reduce his sentence because United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) Amendment 634 is a clarifying amendment, which applies retroactively, and not a substantive amendment. However, the list of retroactive amendments set forth by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) does not include Amendment 634, and therefore a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) is unauthorized because it would not be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a); United States v. Cueto, 9 F.3d 1438, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1993).

Eames further contends that his sentence is illegal because it exceeds the applicable statutory maximum sentence. This contention fails in light of Eames’s conviction for fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, for which the…