imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing Commission’s policy statements provide that, unless the defendant was originally sentenced to a term that was less than the applicable guideline range at the time of sentencing, a reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) shall not be' less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A)-(B) & comment, (n.3). This Court has recently rejected Nealy’s argument that the district court has the authority to sentence below the amended guideline range. United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the decision of the district court
holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to  3582c2 proceedings holding that  3582c2 does not authorize a resentencing but merely provides for a sentence reduction within the bounds established by the sentencing commission and that booker does not apply to  3582c2 proceedings holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply to  3582c2 proceedings and that booker and kimbrough do not prohibit the limitations on a judges discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by  3582c2 and the applicable policy statement by the sentencing commission holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2 holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant