by an amendment, even if the amendment would otherwise be applicable to the defendant.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir.2008)). The original sentencing court in 1996 departed from a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment when it sentenced Velez to 292 months. Regardless of whether that court had the authority to sentence Velez below the mandatory minimum, and regardless of whether the district court had the authority to reduce his sentence to 235 months in his earlier 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, his original sentence was the result of a downward departure. Velez’s guideline range, even considering the amendments to § 2D 1.1(c), remains subject to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment. See Mills, 613 F.3d at 1078 (<HOLDING>). Because Velez remained subject to the
holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that  3582c2 does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended guidelines range 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 the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent