policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, state that “the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A). Hatten’s argument that he was entitled to a reduction below his amended guideline range is foreclosed by precedent. We recently held that Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and thus, the district court is bound by the limitations imposed by § 1B1.10 and does not have the authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10,
holding that the limitations on the degree of a sentence reduction under  3582c2 are mandatory holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range 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 a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable 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