MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Moreno appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

In the district court, Moreno moved for a sentence reduction in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court correctly concluded that this claim does not provide a basis for relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentenc-ing proceeding, but rather authorizes the district court to modify a sentence in the “limited circumstance[ ]” where a defendant who was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered).

On appeal, Moreno raises several new arguments, including claims challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the length of his sentence. These claims are not properly before us, see United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001), and are outside the scope of a section 3582(c)(2) motion, see Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

To the extent Moreno seeks to recall the mandate in one of his previous appeals, that request may not be raised in this appeal.

AFFIRMED.