In Re: Juan Pinales

Juan Carlos Piñales, federal prisoner # 50040-177, pleaded guilty to possession ■with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. He filed a pro se motion to “vacate, correct[ ], or ... set aside” his sentence on account of a “clarifying amendment.” His motion contended that the district court erred in declining to apply a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and that he deserved a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 794 to the Guidelines. Construing his motion as one for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the district court denied it. In a fifing that we construe as a notice of appeal, 1 Piñales re-urges the arguments he made to the district court.

Pinales’s arguments on appeal are unavailing. Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guidelines amendments as set forth in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(d). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Amendment 794 is not fisted in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) as an amendment for which a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) may be granted. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that Amendment 794 is not a basis for the sentence reduction requested by Piñales. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683; United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Likewise, Pinales’s other challenges, largely based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) and Mathis v. United States, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), are not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.