UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James TEMPLETON, Defendant-Appellant, 707 F. App'x 887

MEMORANDUM James Templeton appeals 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. Templeton contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under

section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Templeton’s contention,

section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize the district court to apply a two-level reduction for safety valve because such a reduction was not applied at Templeton’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § lB.10(b)(l) (when determining, a defendant’s amended guideline range, the court “shall substitute only the [amended provisions] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

This is true even if the district court erred by failing to apply a safety valve reduction at the original sentencing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683. Because Templeton’s 240-month sentence is below his amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months, he is ineligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (the district court may not reduce a defendant’s sentence “to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,