#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay El WILBURN, a.k.a. Jayel Wilburn, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-13864

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 15, 2009.

Jay El Wilburn, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Judy K. Hunt, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HULL, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jay El Wilburn, a federal prisoner convicted of two counts of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (Counts 1 and 3), and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 4), appeals the district *762court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for reduction of sentence. After review, we affirm.1

A district court may modify a term of imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” *Id.*

Wilburn’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is based on Amendment 599, which “was promulgated in order to prevent ‘double counting’ for firearms use in any *one criminal event.” United States v. Pringle,*350 F.3d 1172, 1180 (11th Cir.2003). Pursuant to Amendment 599, a defendant who was convicted of a § 924(c) firearm offense and an underlying offense, such as carjacking, shall not receive a guidelines enhancement for discharge of the firearm when determining the sentence for the underlying offense. U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 599 (2003) (codified as amended at U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 cmt. n. 4); *see also Pringle,*350 F.3d at 1179. Amendment 599 may be applied retroactively upon a § 3582(c)(2) motion. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c).

Here, the district court did not err in denying Wilburn’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because Amendment 599 had no effect on Wilburn’s sentencing range. At sentencing, Wilburn received a seven-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(A), for discharging a firearm during his Count 1 carjacking offense. He did not receive a similar enhancement for his Count 3 carjacking offense, which was the underlying offense for his Count 4 § 924(c) firearm offense. Thus, there was no “double-counting” prohibited by Amendment 599, and Wilburn’s sentencing range remains unchanged. *See Pringle,*350 F.3d at 1180 (“Amendment 599 allows for weapons enhancements for all robberies except for the one robbery that served as the basis for Pringle’s § 924(c) conviction.”). Because Wilburn was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, the district court had no need to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or the policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Vautier,*144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir.1998) (explaining that the district court considers the § 3553(a) factors only after the district court has determined that the defendant is eligible for a reduction because an amendment has lowered the guidelines range).

Finally, Wilburn’s argument regarding the applicability of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is foreclosed by our precedent. *See United States v. Melvin,*556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.2009) (concluding that *Booker*does 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).

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).