had been sentenced as a career offender, his sentencing range had not been lowered by these amendments. The resolution of a § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009). We have held that “[t]he crack cocaine guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.” United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir.2009). Robinson acknowledges that the PSR calculated a sentencing range based on the career offender guideline, but he argues that the district court found that the career offender guideline overrepresented his criminal history, it granted a departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(l), and it selected x. 365, 365-66 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Because Robinson was sentenced as a career
holding that a district court is entitled to disagree with the career offender guideline holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines holding that a defendant whose sentence is based on his status as a career offender under  4b11 is not entitled to  3582c2 relief because amendments 706 and 713 do not lower the applicable guideline range for a career offender