UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emert Reginald FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant, 359 F. App'x 742

MEMORANDUM Emert Reginald Flowers appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and affirm. The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify Flowers’ sentence. Flowers would have been subject to the same sentencing range had Amendment 706 been in place at the time he was sentenced.

See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2001) (providing that the career offender base offense level applies where it is greater than the applicable base offense level under § 2D1.1). Accordingly, Flowers’ “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by § 3582(c)(2).” Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.