
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain CASADO, a.k.a. E-4, a.k.a. Efro, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-11483
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2015.
    Christopher J. Clark, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Emily M. Sma-chetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Efrain Casado, Jesup, GA, pro se.
    Before TJOFLAT, WILSÓN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Efrain Casado, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and currently serving a total life sentence for his role in a cocaine distribution conspiracy, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Casado argues that the district court incorrectly determined that Amendment 782 did not affect his guideline sentencing range. Casado also maintains that the sentencing court improperly used U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l’s murder cross-reference in calculating his offense level and that his total sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). After review, we affirm.

Casado’s guideline sentencing range stemmed not from § 2Dl.l(c), the now-amended drug quantity table, but from § 2Dl.l(d)(l), the murder cross-reference to § 2A1.1. See United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1256 (11th Cir.2005). Amendment 782 amended neither § 2Dl.l(d)(l) nor § 2Á1.1. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that Casado is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment ... is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if — [the amendment] does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

We decline to consider Casado’s challenges to the sentencing court’s original guideline calculations under Apprendi and to the substantive reasonableness of Casa-do’s sentence because they are “extraneous resentencing issues” not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir.2008).
     