NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 17 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-10041

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00119-WBS-5

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DANNY PEREDA, AKA T-Mighty,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      Danny Pereda 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.

      Pereda argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

782. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a

      *
             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).
sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Wesson, 

, 730

(9th Cir. 2009). As the district court concluded, Pereda was sentenced as a career

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Contrary to Pereda’s assertion, the fact that the

parties stipulated to, and the district court accepted, a sentence below the career-

offender guideline range does not make him eligible for a reduction. For purposes

of a sentence reduction motion, the “applicable” guideline range is the pre-variance

range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Pleasant, 

, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2013), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Because the pre-variance range here was

the career-offender range, which was not lowered by Amendment 782, Pereda is

ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 

; 

.

      Pereda’s remaining claims are outside the scope of this section 3582(c)(2)

proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 

, 831 (2010).

      AFFIRMED.




                                           2                                    19-10041