Task: Text Completion
Input (English): U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A (1993). Thus, any error by the district court in denying Oliver eligibility for relief under Amendment 505 was harmless. Nor would Amendment 706 affect his sentence. In Oliver’s § 3582 motion, he conceded that he was held accountable for 11.23 kilograms of cocaine base. Therefore, Oliver’s base offense level would remain unchanged even after Amendment 706 revised § 2Dl.l(c)(l) because he was held responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. In short, Oliver’s sentence was not based on a range subsequently lowered by Amendment 706 and the district court lacked authority to grant him a sentencing reduc tion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B); see also United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, McFadden v. United States, — 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that amendment 706 would not affect the guideline ranges for career offenders sentenced under  4b11 (B) holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under  3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders (C) holding that a district court lacks authority under  3582c2 to reduce a defendants sentence when the defendant was sentenced under  4b11 as a career offender (D) holding that the district court lacked authority under  3582c2 to grant a sentencing reduction to defendants who were career offenders sentenced under ussg  4b11 because amendment 706 would not ultimately affect their guideline ranges (E) holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines
Output (English): (D)