1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United Stat es District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2996

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States vs. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska Kevin Jones, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2009 Filed: April 14, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KAYS, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Appellant Kevin Jones filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court 2granted Jones a two level reduction and imposed a 120 month within the Guidelines sentence. Jones appeals the court’s refusal to grant more than a two-level re duction in the offense level. We affirm.3 The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. This case was assigned to Judge Smith Camp on May 16, 2006 following Judge Cambridge’s retirement.

4543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed.2d 621 (2005).

5 Jones did not seek to reduce his se ntence on the firearms charge, and that aspect of his sentence is notat issue in this appeal.
-2- I. Background
In 1998 Kevin Jones plead guilty by agreement to an amended information charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, commonly known as “crack cocaine,” and using or carry ing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime. In 1999 the district court, 3 applying the mandatory sentencing guidelines in effect prior to United States v. Booker 4sentenced Jones to 162 months for distribution of crack cocaine to be served consecutively with a 60 month sentence for carrying a handgun in conjunction with a drug offense. The 162 month sentence was the maximum under the guideline rangeof 130 to 162 months resulting from an offense level of 27 and a criminal history category VI.
On November 1, 2007, Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines went into effect lowering sentencing ranges for crack cocaine offenses by two offense levels. Amendment 713 subsequently made this change retroactive.
On June 24, 2008, Jones filed a mo tion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking to reduce his sentence on the distribution ch arge based on the retroactive Guideline Amendment. 5 The district court held a heari ng on August 11, 2008, determined Jones was entitled to a sentence adjustment, and reduced his sentence on the distribution charge to 120 months, a sent ence in the middle of his ne wly adjusted guideline range of 110 to 137 months.
Jones appeals.-3- II. Discussion

We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lewis , 557 F.3d 601, 613 (8th Cir. 2009). We review fo r abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Wyatt , 115 F.3d 606, 609 (8th Cir. 1997).
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowere d by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(0), . . . the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the ex tent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statement here is provided by section 1B1.10 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which states that proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) are not full rese ntencings and that a district court may not reduce a sentence to a te rm less than the minimum amended guideline range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (2007).
Jones argues that the district court improperly limited his sentence reduction to a two-level reduction in the offe nse level. He argues that th e district court erred in not recognizing that Booker applies to resentencings under § 3582(c)(2), erred in treating the amended guideline range as the defau lt range, and abused its discretion in not finding that the amended guide line range was still greater than necessary to serve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). All of his arguments turn on whether Booker applies to his resentencing or not.
We recently held in United States v. Starks that Booker does not apply to resentencings under § 3582(c). 551 F.3d 839, 840 (8th Cir. 2009). In Starks we observed that “sentence re ductions based on retroactive guideline amendments” are-4- sentence modification proceedings governed by § 3582(c), and that in enacting § 3582(c) Congress limited the authority of a di strict court to modify a sentence. Id. at 841-42. We further noted that this limitation does not raise the constitutional concerns at issue in Booker , and that Booker did not invalidate § 3582(c). Id . We concluded that a district court may not reduce a se ntence below the amended guideline range, and that it was not error for a district court “to refuse to consider a further reduction based on § 3553(a) or to hold an evidentiary hearing for that purpose.” Id. at 843; accord United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rhodes , 549 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2008); but see United States v. Hicks , 472 F.3d 167 (9th Cir. 2007).

Consistent with Starks, we hold that the district court did not err in limiting Jones’ sentence reduction to a two-level reduc tion in the offense level. We affirm.

______________________________