[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 11378 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:05

- cr - 00022

- LC

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus CLIFFORD LAMAR VASON, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Florida

________________________ ( September 26, 2017 ) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Clifford Vason, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 35 82(c)(2). After careful review, we affirm. Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 1 of 32 I. In 2005, Vason pled guilty to one count of kidnapping and transportation of persons in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of v iolence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was sentenced to 181

- months imprisonment. In 2017, Vason filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argued that an amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2 should allow him to receive a reduction to his guidelines sentencing range. The district court denied his motion, ruling it was “ not autho rized to reconsider a sentence relative to commentary in [§ 3B1.2]

. ” This appeal followed.
II. We review de novo whether the district court has authority to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Melvin , 556 F.3d 1190, 1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a court to modify a prison sentence if it was imposed “ based on a sente ncing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission

. . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. ” The applicable policy statement, contained in Guidelines § 1B1.10, allows courts to reduce prison sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only if the

Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 2 of 33 g uideline amendment is listed in Guidelines § 1B1.10(d). USSG § 1B1.10(a) ; see United States v. Melton , 861 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2017)

. Vason argues that his sentence should be reduced based on Guidelines Amendment 794, which a ddressed § 3B1.2

. S ee USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend. 794 (2015). However, Amendment 794 is not among the guideline amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d). The refore, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not al low Vason to be resentenced based on the change to Guidelines § 3B1.2 after his sentence was imposed

. 1 See United States v. Armstrong , 347 F.3d 905, 907

– 08 (11th Cir. 2003)

. AFFIRMED.

1 Vason also attacks his conviction fo r the first time on appeal based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rosemond v. United States , 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014)

. However, a court cannot review a conviction on a motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Cf. United States v. Bravo , 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ Section 3582(c)

. . . does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues

. [The Ap pellant] must instead bring .

. . a collateral attack on his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ”).

Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 3 of 3