The appellant challenges the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, urging *73 that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for a sentencing reduction. He asserts that his sentence was tied to a guidelines range as his plea agreement stipulated only a maximum term, arrived at after the applicable guidelines range was calculated. He further contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion.

As the district court determined, appellant was not .eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” § 3582(c)(2). Rather, the district court sentenced appellant to 120 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016). 1 Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction. See Freeman, 564 U.S. at 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); Benitez, 822 F.3d at 809-12; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2111; United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.