Thomas Crossland appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for a *608 sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief suggesting that' a sentence reduction was warranted in light of the manner in which Crossland’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range for two drug offenses was calculated. Crossland has not filed a supplemental brief.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that Crossland was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentences for the drug offenses were not based on the Guidelines, but rather were based on the applicable statutory máximums. See United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes modification); United States v. Johnson, 697 F.3d 1190, 1191 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirming denial of' § 3582(c)(2) motion where Guidelines range did not serve as basis for term of imprisonment).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.