Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Keith Larkins appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence reduction. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

Section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable to Lar-kins because he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range” that was subsequently lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission. Rather, as the district court correctly found, he was sentenced to the mandatory statutory minimum term of imprisonment. Larkins’ sentence was therefore not subject to reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Id. at 187 (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a [cocaine base] offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral ar *182 gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.