
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher MOORE, Appellant. Daniel Gladden, also known as Raz, also known as Raz Gladden, also known as Noodles Gladden, also known as Noodles, Defendant.
    
    No. 11-1854-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2012.
    Christopher Moore, Jonesville, VA, pro se.
    Amy Busa, Matthew S. Amatruda, Assistant United States Attorneys, of Counsel, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOS É A. CABRANES, and ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Christopher Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s April 18, 2011 post-judgment order (1) construing certain papers that he filed as a motion for reconsideration of its February 26, 2009 ruling on his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); and (2) denying the motion as construed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

First, the District Court correctly determined that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, cannot be used to reduce the sentences of defendants, like Moore, who were sentenced prior to the Act’s August 2010 effective date, see United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam). Second, Moore’s arguments that (1) his sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and (2) the evidence at trial established that the substance involved in his offense was powder cocaine, rather than crack cocaine, are beyond the proper scope of the current appeal. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that “ § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding” and only grants courts the power to reduce a sentence in specific circumstances not before us. Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). For these reasons, we find no merit to Moore’s appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we AFFIRM the April 18, 2011 order of the District Court.  