MEMORANDUM **

Rebekah Fouquet appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fouquet contends that the district court erred in holding that it lacked authority to grant her request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court may only reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) when the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), cmt. n.1(A); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. As the district court found, Amendment 782 did not lower Fouquet’s Guidelines range. Thus, notwithstanding Fouquet’s policy and equity-based arguments, the district court properly denied her motion. Moreover, contrary to Fouquet’s contention, the rule of lenity does not assist her *873 because section 3582(c)(2). is unambiguous. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (rule of lenity applies only when a statute is ambiguous).

AFFIRMED.