Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

James Coury Holmes appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Holmes’ motion was based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines, see USSG App. C, Supp., Amend. 709 (revising USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2)). Although the district court erroneously construed Holmes’ motion as one seeking relief under Amendment 706, we find the error harmless because Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively and therefore would not authorize a reduction in Holmes’ sentence. See USSG § 1B1.10(c); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n. 2 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that an amendment to the Guidelines may be applied retroac *819 tively only when the amendment is expressly listed in USSG § IB 1.10(c)). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.