UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick FUNCHESS, Defendant-Appellant, 610 F. App'x 966

PER CURIAM: Patrick Funchess, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Funchess argues the district court erred in denying his motion because he is entitled to a reduction under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 782. Upon review, we affirm. “Where 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); see also U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (stating a reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). Funchess’s applicable guidelines range was determined by the career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a), not the drug quantity table, U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). Since Amendment 782 amended the drug quantity table, and not the career-offender guideline upon which Funchess’s sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) relief is not available to Fun-chess under Amendment 782.

The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion for a sentence reduction. AFFIRMED. . We review de novo a district’s court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n. 9 (11th Cir.2010).