MEMORANDUM **

Jose Cardenas-Mendoza 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.

Cardenas-Mendoza contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 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. *468 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Cardenas-Mendoza is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Moreover, because the district court lacked authority to reduce Cardenas-Mendoza’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

To the extent that Cardenas-Mendoza seeks to challenge his sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a “plenary re-sentencing proceeding”).

AFFIRMED.