MEMORANDUM **

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

*743 Bogard contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err by concluding that such a reduction would be inconsistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(A), (c); see also United States v. Marler, 527 F.3d 874, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively).

AFFIRMED.