is required only if the sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines.” Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 202-03, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (quotations and emphasis omitted). Section 3582(c)(2) gives retroactive effect to particular amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that subsequently lower the sentencing range upon which an earlier sentence was based. United States v. Pringle, 350 F.3d 1172, 1176 (11th Cir.2003). The relevant policy statement on retroactive reduction of sentences provides that a sentence reduction is authorized under § 3582(c)(2) only where the applicable amendment to the Guidelines Manual is enumerated in § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a); United States v. Pe-laez, 196 F.3d 1203, 1205 n. 3 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Even if an amendment applies retroactively,
holding that although the amendment at issue was a clarifying amendment and therefore applied retroactively in the context of direct appeals and habeas petitions it could not serve as the basis for a  3582c2 reduction because it was not listed in  lb110c holding that only the amendments listed in  lb110c may be applied retroactively using a  3582e2 motion holding that the 1986 amendments may not be applied retroactively to cut off a defense which existed under the old law holding that the 2000 version of section 489128 may not be retroactively applied holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively