Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the [retroactive] amendments ... for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and ... leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1) (emphasis added); see United States v. McBride, 283 F.3d 612, 615 (3d Cir.2002) (“only the retroactive amendment is to be considered at a resentencing under § 3582”). Thus, in Barner’s case, the District Court was limited to ascertaining Barner’s Guidelines range had Amendment 706 been in place during his initial sentencing. The District Court lacked authority to reconsider its initial criminal history calculation or any other component of Barner’s initial sentence that was not affected by a retroactive amendment. Cf. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 156 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the District Court did not err 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions (B) holding that the district court lacked authority to revisit the application of the career offender enhancement in a  3582 motion because that enhancement was not affected by a retroactive amendment (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines (E) holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement
Output (English): holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines