UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JUAN CARLOS ANGULO-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-6080 (D.C. No. 5:91- CR-00220-D-6) (W.D. Okla.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________ _______________ Before BACHARACH , MURPHY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ This appeal involves limitations on the district court’s jurisd iction to reduce a sentence when the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduces t he pertinent base offense level.
* * *

* Mr. Angulo-Lopez does not reque st oral argument, and it would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. We therefore ha ve decided the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgme nt does not constitut e binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. But our order and judg ment may be cited fo r its persuasive valu e under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 4, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 This jurisdictional issue grew out of Mr. Juan Carlos Angulo-Lo pez’s conviction on eleven counts of drug traffi cking involving cocai ne base. At sentencing, the district court

 found that Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s total offense level under the federal sentencing g uidelines was 48 and

 imposed concurrent sentences o f 480 months, 240 months, 60 months, and life imprisonment. But after the senten cing, the U.S. Sente ncing Commission adopte d Amendment 782, which “reduced the base offense levels assigned to certain drug offenses by two levels.” United States v. Green , 886 F.3d 1300, 1302 (10th Cir. 2018 ). Given this reduct ion in base offen se levels, Mr. Angulo-Lopez moved for a se ntence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 1
The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdictio n, reasoning that the change in the sentencing guide lines would no t have affected Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s sent ence. Mr. Angulo -Lopez appeals, and we affirm. To decide this appeal, we must d etermine whether Amendment 782 would have affected Mr. Angulo -Lopez’s guideline range. E.g. , United States v. Sharkey , 543 F.3d 1236, 1238–39 (10th Cir. 2008). On this issue,

1 Section 3582(c)(2) p rovides that a court may modify a sentenc e when the sentence is “based on a sent encing range that has subsequen tly been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”3 we engage in de novo review. United States v. Rhodes , 549 F.3d 833, 837 (10th Cir. 2008). In calculating the gu ideline range for the initial sentence, th e district court started with a base offense level of 42 and enhanced this by six levels, resulting in a tot al offense level of 48. 2 With the reduction in base offense levels from Amendment 782, Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s base offe nse level would have decreased from 42 to 38. With the same enhance ments applied at the initia l sentencing, the tot al offense level woul d have dipped from 48 to 44. But with Mr. Angulo -Lopez’s criminal history cat egory of II, the guideline sentence would h ave remained life imprisonmen t. In these circumstances, Mr. Angulo-Lopez c ould not obtain a sentence red uction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of impr isonment is not consistent with the policy statement and therefore is no t authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) if . . . an am endment . . . does n ot have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” ); see also United States v. McGee , 615 F.3d 1287, 1292 (10t h Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Sentencing Commission’s policy statements i n § 1B1.10 are bindi ng on

2 In his reply brief, Mr. Angulo- Lopez stated tha t the sentenci ng court enhanced his base offense level from 38 to 44. Appellant’s Repl y Br. at 7. This statement is incorrect based on the sentencing record. In his opening brief, Mr. Angulo-Lopez had acknowledged that the sentencing co urt enhanced his base offense level from 42 to 48. Appellant’s Pro Se Resp. Br. at 4, 7.4 district courts and limit their authority to grant motions for reduction of sentences.”). Mr. Angulo-Lopez argues that the guidelines are no longer bindi ng on the district court in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). But the Supreme Court lat er concluded that “proceedings under [§ 3582(c)(2)] do not implicate the interests identified in Booker .” Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 828 ( 2010). This conclu sion precludes jurisdiction over Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s motion. See United States v. White , 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 ( 10th Cir. 2014).
* * * Because Amendment 782 did n ot affect Mr. Angulo-Lopez’s guideline range, the court lacked jurisd iction under § 3582(c)( 2) to modify the sentence. The dist rict court thus prop erly dismissed Mr. An guloLopez’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, and we affirm the dism issal. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge