
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dale G. LUCAS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-1684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 11, 2010.
    Filed: Jan. 25, 2010.
    Laine Cardarella, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
    Lajuana M. Counts, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Matt J. Whitworth, Acting U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
    
      Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In 2006, Dale G. Lucas, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The district court determined an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 130-162 months and sentenced Lúeas to 130 months in prison. After the Sentencing Commission reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to crack cocaine offenses in Amendments 706, 711, and 713 to the Guidelines, Lucas moved for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court granted a two-level reduction, reducing the advisory range to 110-137 months, and re-sentenced Lucas to 110 months in prison. The court noted: “The maximum adjustment permitted is 2 levels, so the Court cannot grant the Defendant’s request for a greater reduction.”

Lucas appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it considered the Guidelines mandatory in applying § 3582(c)(2) and the policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2746, 174 L.Ed.2d 257 (2009), that “neither the Sixth Amendment nor [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005),] prevents Congress from incorporating a guideline provision as a means of defining and limiting a district court’s authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c).” The district court correctly applied 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) as construed in Starks, which is binding on our panel. We reject Lucas’s contention that Spears v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 840, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) — a decision that did not mention § 3582(c)(2) — permits us to revisit the decision of another panel in Starks. Accordingly, we must affirm. 
      
      . The HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     
      
      . We note that nearly every other circuit agrees with our decision in Starks. See, e.g., United States v. Dillon, 572 F.3d 146, 148-50 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 797, - L.Ed.2d - (2009).
     