Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Raymond Stern appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and a district court’s ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Stern was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Because Stern was sentenced pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that specified the offense level but not the criminal history category or the advisory Guidelines range, and did not link the sentence to any particular Guidelines range, his sentence was based on the plea agreement and not a Guidelines range. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2017). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED