Raymond Mendez appeals from 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. Mendez first contends that the district court erred in concluding that Mendez is ineligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court appropriately found
holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under  3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders holding that  3582c2 does not authorize a resentencing but merely provides for a sentence reduction within the bounds established by the sentencing commission and that booker does not apply to  3582c2 proceedings holding reduction of sentence under  3582c2 based on amendment not listed in  1b110c is not authorized