MEMORANDUM **

The district court dismissed Luciano Ramirez-Salazar’s most recent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. Ramirez-Salazar concedes that his motion contains at most one claim that is not so barred — a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction proceeding.

We need not decide whether that claim is also second or successive, because the *369 claim is without merit in any event. Ramirez-Salazar did not have a constitutional right to counsel during his § 8582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Ramirez-Salazar argues that our holding in Townsend is no longer good law, but the intervening Supreme Court decisions he cites are not “clearly irreconcilable” with Townsend, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). With “no constitutional right to counsel, [Ramirez-Salazar] could not be deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.” Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.