MEMORANDUM **

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

Cotharn contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for resentenc-ing pursuant to the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in denying the motion because Cotharn *345 was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, Cotharn’s contention that the district court had authority under United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2007), to resentence him pursuant to the advisory Guidelines lacks merit. See U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008); see also United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.