courts are permitted to modify a term of imprisonment when a defendant is sentenced pursuant to a sentencing range that has since been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, a reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2), even when the retroactive amendment applies to the defendant, if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008). Such situations include those in which the retroactive amendment would result in a lower base offense level if the defendant was not subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Glover, 686 F.3d at 1206; see United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Even if the defendant is sentenced below the
holding that the district courts use of the sentencing guidelines as a mandatory regime was harmless error because appellant could not receive a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum required by  2251d holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding it permissible to increase a mandatory minimum sentence based solely on facts found by the sentencing judge holding that a sentence based on a mandatory minimum was unaffected by amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute