that Mendez was responsible for the distribution of 139 kilograms of crack cocaine. This finding of fact maintained Mendez’s base offense level at 38, which did not lower his sentencing range. See Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Mendez also contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence by failing to address his mitigating argument and to adequately explain the reasons for declining to impose a lower sentence. He further contends that his guideline sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his limited involvement in the conspiracy. Mendez’s arguments are foreclosed by Dillon v. United States, -U.S.-, 180 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-94,177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
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 issues that do not apply to retroactive guidelines amendments are not cognizable under  3582c2 holding that bookeys holdings do not apply to section 3582c2 proceedings and therefore do not require treating section lb110b as advisory holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2