Jose Manuel Arciniega appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arciniega contends that the district court erred when it denied his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 709 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(l)(A). Because that Amendment is not referenced by U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e), Arciniega is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a) (2008); United States v. Cueto, 9 F.3d 1438, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.