MEMORANDUM ***

Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant .., has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was based on Monge’s conduct herein.

AFFIRMED.