UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rodolfo SEGURA, also known as Rodalfo, also known as Rudolfo, also known as Rudalfo, also known as Rudy, Jose Orlando Pena, Cielo Melendez, John E. Elejalde, also known as Juancito, Martin Torres, Robert Vadas, also known as Bahama Bob, Carlos Davila, also known as Superman, also known as Sup, William Lopez, also known as Willie, Oswaldo Rodriguez, also known as Ozzie, Evette Rodriguez, Thomas Smalls, Daniel Marra, Richard Treglia, Joseph Cappellieri, also known as Mr. Joe, Oscar Flores, Shaki Sumpter, Norris Sanders, also known as Chucky, James W. Williams, Angel Rodriguez, also known as Gago, Jose Figueroa, also known as Gilligan, Joselito Rotger, also known as Flathead, Oscar Figueroa, also known as Shocker, Juanita Figueroa, Noel Rodriguez, also known as Chicano, Lela Ali, Malvin Marquez, also known as Big Pun, Van Turner, Jeffrey Navarro, also known as Goonie, Reginald Joseph, also known as Bama, Paul Iannacone, also known as Nick, Hector Barrientos, also known as the Uncle, Jimmy Augusto Restrepo, also known as Jimmy, Martha Collazo Torres, Octavio Taborda, Norman Arrango Ramirez, Carlos Bolanos Yusty, Defendants, William Lopez, Defendant-Appellant, 326 F. App'x 48

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-appellant William Lopez appeals from an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Burns, J.) dated May 9, 2008, granting Lopez’s motion for a reduction in sentence, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), insofar as it sought a reduction within the amended Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range, and reducing Lopez’s sentence from 292 to 262 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Lopez argues on appeal that the district court erred when it concluded that it lacked the authority under § 1B1.10 of the Guidelines to reduce his sentence below the amended Guidelines range. Lopez’s argument, however, is foreclosed by United States v.

Savoy, 567 F.3d 71, 74 (2d Cir.2009), in which we held that “district courts lack the authority when reducing a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) to reduce that sentence below the amended Guidelines range where the original sentence fell within the applicable pre-amendment Guidelines range.” We have considered all of Lopez’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.