#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavus K. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-16372

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 29, 2009.

*812Gustavus K. Johnson, Jesup, GA, pro se.

Zahra S. Karinshak, John Andrew Horn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HULL, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gustavus Johnson, a federal prisoner convicted of, *inter alia,*crack cocaine offenses, appeals *pro se*the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. After review, we affirm.1

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify an already incarcerated defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, “[wjhere a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” *United States v. Moore,*541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), *and,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009); *see also*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B). A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower a defendant’s applicable guidelines range *813“because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision) U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(A).

The district court did not err in concluding that Johnson was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c) applicable to crack cocaine offenses. At sentencing, Johnson’s offense level was based on the career offender offense level in U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(c)(2)(A), not the offense level for his crack cocaine offenses found in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)’s drug quantity tables.2 Although the sentencing court departed downward three levels, Johnson’s sentencing range was not affected by Amendment 706. *See Moore,*541 F.3d at 1327-30 (concluding that Amendment 706 has no effect on the sentencing range of a defendant sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 even when the defendant received a § 5K1.1 downward departure and that the defendant thus is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction).

Johnson’s argument that he is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), is foreclosed by our precedent. *See United States v. Melvin,*556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.2009) (concluding that *“Booker*and *Kimbrough*do not prohibit the limitations on a judge’s discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement by the Sentencing Commission”), *petition for cert. filed,*(U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664); *United States v. Jones,*548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir.2008) (concluding that *Booker*does not provide a basis on which to grant a § 3583(c)(2) motion), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1657, 173 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2009). To the extent Johnson argues that the district court at his original sentencing should have calculated his offense level using U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, this argument is outside the scope of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (limiting proceedings to eases where retroactive amendment affects the applicable sentencing range); *United States v. Bravo,*203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.2000) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not constitute a *de novo*resentencing).

AFFIRMED.

1

. "We review *de novo*a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” *United States v. James,*548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008).

2

. Because Johnson qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a), and his multiple counts of conviction included an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearms offense, his applicable guidelines range was the greater of that called for by either U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (c)(2)(A) or § 4B 1.1 (c)(2)(B). U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(2). Because the range calculated pursuant to § 4B 1.1(c)(2)(A) was the greater of the two, that range applied.