the guideline range was the same: 360 months to life imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 5, pt. A (2014) (Sentencing Table). Thus, the amendment to the drug-quantity tables did not affect Mr. Norwood’s guideline range. In these circumstances, Mr. Norwood cannot obtain a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C: § 3582(c)(2). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (2014) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if ... an amendment ... does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”); see also United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir.2008) (stating that because a guideline amendmen 6 (10th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Amendment 782 reduces the base-offense level
holding that appellant hjaving failed to exercise administrative appeal  cannot now collaterally attack the tax deficiency determination in an independent action holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that a defendant cannot collaterally attack his sentence under 18 usc  3582c2 holding that crimes subject to a minimum sentence of 15 years under 18 usc  924e1 are properly characterized as class a felonies under 18 usc  3559 holding that a party could not collaterally attack a default judgment obtained against him in a foreclosure action