NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10009 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB v. MEMORANDUM* SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Guerro, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Socorro Loya-Chavez 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.

Loya-Chavez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Loya-Chavez was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782, and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result.

Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-10009