on United States v. Schaffer, 110 F.3d 530, 532-34 (8th Cir.1997). We disagree. In Schaffer, we were asked to determine whether the district court ignored section 3553(e)’s directive to rely on the Guidelines in calculating reduced sentences, when the court used the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence as the starting point for its downward departure in sentencing the defendant for an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction. The defendant in that case, who also had pleaded guilty to a drug offense, argued that the district court instead should have applied a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(b)(l) (1997) to his drug sentence, departed from that point, and treated the consecutive 60-month sentence as if it did not exist. See Schaffer, 110 F.3d at 531-534 (<HOLDING>). Here, however, there is no allegation that
holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under  3582c2 holding 60month mandatory minimum sentence was proper departure point following grant of  3553e motion holding that a motion under  5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under  3553e holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that after granting the governments motion for downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the district court did not err when it determined that the starting point for departing downward was the higher statutorily required minimum sentence and not the lower otherwise applicable guideline range