ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Defendant Hugo Louis Ramirez ("Defendant") pled guilty to Possession of Pseudoephedrine with Knowledge or Reasonable Cause to Believe it Would be Used to Manufacture Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) and Maintaining a Drug-Involved Premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856. On April 28, 2008, Defendant was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence. ECF No. 277. This matter was referred to the Office of the Federal Defender, which subsequently filed a notice indicating that it would not be supplementing Defendant's motion. ECF No. 281.1 The Government opposes Defendant's request. ECF No. 284. For the reasons that follow, that Motion is DENIED.

Defendant seeks to reduce his sentence in light of the United States Sentencing Commission's passage of Amendment 782. Generally, Amendment 782 revised downward by two levels the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Although Amendment 782 became effective November 1, 2014, it applies retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), (e)(1).

"When the Commission makes a Guidelines amendment retroactive, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce an otherwise final sentence that is based on the amended provision." Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821 (2010). "Any reduction must be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. "The relevant policy statement, USSG § 1B1.10, instructs courts proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) to substitute the amended Guidelines range while `leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions unaffected.'" Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)). Under § 3582(c)(2), a court may then grant a reduction within the amended Guidelines range if it determines that one is warranted "`after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.'" Id. at 822. "Except in limited circumstances, however, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) forecloses a court acting under § 3582(c)(2) from reducing a sentence `to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.'"2 Id. In addition, "a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment . . . is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . [the] amendment . . . does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Defendant is not eligible for a reduction in his sentence because Amendment 782 "[did] not have the effect of lowering [his] applicable guideline range." Id. Defendant's original Total Offense Level was 41. With a Criminal History Category V, the guideline range was thus 360 months to life (although 480 months was the statutory maximum). However, even if Defendant is now afforded a 2-level reduction such that his Total Offense Level is 39, the guideline range remains 360 months to life. Accordingly, because the amendment did not lower Defendant's sentencing range, his Motion (ECF No. 277) is DENIED. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 2009).

IT IS SO ORDERED.