MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Roca-Suarez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Roca-Suarez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Roca-Suarez’s contention, Amendment 591 did not alter the Guidelines section applicable to his offense of conviction or the calculation of his Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 591 (Supp. 2003); see also United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing changes made by Amendment 591). Because Amendment 591 did not lower Roca-Suarez’s Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674.

Roca-Suarez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the reasons for its denial of his motion. Because the court had no authority to modify Roca-Suarez’s sentence, however, its summary denial was not improper.

AFFIRMED.