omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court, therefore, properly denied Beasley’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. For this same reason, the district court also properly denied Beasley’s petition for a writ of audita querela. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . Because Beasley was not entitled to resen-tencing, the district court was not required to apply Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), to Beasley's sentence. See Wesson, 583 F.3d at 730; see also United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 673 (9th Cir.2002), as amended
holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively