MEMORANDUM **

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

Miranda-Mendoza contends that the district court erred by denying him a sentence reduction under Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Miranda-Mendoza’s contention, his 120-month sentence was not based on the Guidelines; rather, it was the lowest sentence that the court could impose by statute. See 21 U.S.C, § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Because Miranda-Mendoza was sentenced based on the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court correctly concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A); Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

AFFIRMED.