a result of the recent crack amendment, because, with the parties’ express agreement, defendant’s range was calculated under the career offender guideline, not the crack cocaine guideline, and there was no downward departure under the Guidelines. Accordingly, defendant is not eligible for a reduction in sentence. See United States v. McGee, 553 F.3d 225, 227 (2d Cir.2009) (noting that the consensus among courts is that “a defendant who is sentenced as a career offender, but does not receive a downward departure” from the career offender guideline range down to the crack guideline range does not qualify “for a reduced sentence under the amendments”) (collecting cases); United States v. Barnett, 90 CR 913, 2009 WL 613208, at *2, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23436, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2009) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d
holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines 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 the district court lacked authority under  3582c2 to grant a sentencing reduction to defendants who were career offenders sentenced under ussg  4b11 because amendment 706 would not ultimately affect their guideline ranges holding that a district court resentencing a defendant based on the retroactive change in the crack cocaine guidelines pursuant to  3582c2 lacks authority to sentence a defendant below the newly calculated guidelines range and need not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under  3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders