MEMORANDUM **

James Templeton appeals 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.

Templeton contends that he is eligible for 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. 2009). Contrary to Templeton’s contention, section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize the district court to apply a two-level reduction for safety valve because such a reduction was not applied at Templeton’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § lB.10(b)(l) (when determining, a defendant’s amended guideline range, the court “shall substitute only the [amended provisions] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). This is true even if the district court erred by failing to apply a safety valve reduction at the original sentencing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683. Because Templeton’s 240-month sentence is below his amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months, he is ineligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (the district court may not reduce a defendant’s sentence “to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”).

AFFIRMED.