guidelines range," a reduction of his sentence was "not authorized under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2)." Id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Penaloza argues, for the first time on appeal, that he was entitled to a
reduction of his sentence under Amendment 780, but that Amendment is not
mentioned in section 1B1.10(d), id. § 1B1.10(a)(1). In the absence of an
"amendment[] listed in subsection (d) [that was] applicable to" Penaloza, "[a]
reduction in [his] term of imprisonment [would] not [have been] consistent with
Case: 16-17686 Date Filed: 04/11/2018 Page: 4 of 4
[section 1B1.10] and therefore [would] not [have been] authorized under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2)." See id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A).
We AFFIRM the denial of Penaloza's motion to reduce his sentence.