MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Garcia 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.

Garcia contends that the district court erred in holding that it did not have authority to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2013) overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

Notwithstanding the terms of his plea agreement, Garcia was determined at sentencing to be a career offender. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that Garcia’s applicable Guidelines range was not lowered by Amendment 782 and, as a result, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See id. at 811-12.

Garcia seeks to avoid this outcome by arguing that Pleasant was wrongly decided. We, however, are bound to follow it. See United States v. Boitano, 796 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). Furthermore, contrary to Garcia’s claim, the application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to his case does not *664 violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it does not increase the punishment for his crime over what was imposed when he was sentenced. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.