
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremiah HUDSON, Jr., a.k.a. JJ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-14176
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 12, 2009.
    Jacqueline A. Simms-Petredis, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Tampa, FL, Rosemary T. Cakmis, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Peter J. Sholl, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before BLACK, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeremiah Hudson, Jr., a federal prisoner convicted of crack cocaine offenses, through counsel, appeals the district court’s grant of his motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hudson’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels associated with crack-cocaine offenses. This appeal presents the following factual situation: the district court granted Hudson’s § 3582(e)(2) motion, reduced his offense level by two levels, and sentenced him at the lowest point in his amended Guidelines range. In so doing, the court declined Hudson’s request to impose a variance below the amended Guidelines range in the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, indicating that, even if it had the authority to impose a variance below the amended Guidelines range under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), it would impose the same sentence. On appeal, Hudson generally argues that the district court erred in denying his request to reduce his sentence below the low-end of the amended Guidelines range, finding it lacked authority under Booker to do so.

We recently addressed whether Booker and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), prohibit Congress or the Sentencing Commission from limiting the discretion of a district court in reducing a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1190-91 (11th Cir.2009). Concluding Booker and Kim-brough do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, we held a district court is bound by the limitations on its discretion imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statements by the Sentencing Commission. Id.

Based upon our holding in Melvin, Hudson’s argument that the district court should have sentenced him below the amended Guidelines range is without merit. The applicable policy statement here, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2), and its commentary preclude a district court from reducing a defendant’s sentence below the amended Guidelines range if the defendant’s original sentence fell within the then-applicable Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm Hudson’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.  