to affirm. In arguing that he was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, Johnson maintains that the district court (1) erroneously relied on discredited cocon-spirator testimony in concluding that his base offense level was 36; and (2) downwardly departed to adjust for any potential miscalculation in drug quantity, thereby effectively basing his sentence on a total offense level of 38, not 42. This argument fails because Amendment 782 does not reduce Johnson’s applicable Guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (explaining that defendant is not entitled to sentence reduction where amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (<HOLDING>). In determining eligibility for a sentence
recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public recognizing that  3582c2 requires sentence reductions to be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the sentencing commission 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 does 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  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