Tolbert

*723 MEMORANDUM **

Alfonzo Darnell Tolbert appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court.

Tolbert contends that the district court had authority to lower his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) because his sentence was “based on” a range that Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines has subsequently lowered. This contention is foreclosed because Tolbert received a mandatory-minimum sentence. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1094-96 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); see also United States v. Leniear, 568 F.3d 779 , 783-84 (9th Cir.2009).

He further argues that the district court erred pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and United States v. Hollis, 490 F.3d 1149, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2007), because the indictment did not allege that the drugs involved were crack cocaine. This court has rejected similar contentions as beyond the scope of a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c). See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1094-96 . In any event, Tolbert conceded as part of the…