MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence and, in the alternative, construing his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying the same. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To the extent that Ruiz challenges the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, his appeal lacks merit because he fails to demonstrate that his sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

To the extent that Ruiz appeals from the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, we construe his notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability on the issues in his opening brief. So construed, the request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per cu-riam).

AFFIRMED.