career offender purposes. Watson also argues that if Amendment 709 were applied to nullify his career offender status, then he would be entitled to a sentence reduction by virtue of Amendment 706. Section 3582(c)(2) grants district courts the discretion to reduce a previously imposed sentence “if such a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The relevant policy statement on retroactive reduction of sentences provides that a sentence reduction is authorized under § 3582(c)(2) only where the applicable guideline range was lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual enumerated under § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a); United States v. Pelaez, 196 F.3d 1203, 1205 n. 3 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, a reduction in the defendant’s
holding that the 2000 version of section 489128 may not be retroactively applied holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively holding that only the amendments listed in  lb110c may be applied retroactively using a  3582c2 motion holding that although the amendment at issue was a clarifying amendment and therefore applied retroactively in the context of direct appeals and habeas petitions it could not serve as the basis for a  3582c2 reduction because it was not listed in  lb110c holding that the 1986 amendments may not be applied retroactively to cut off a defense which existed under the old law