v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2693, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), this inquiry begins with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the applicable policy statement. According to U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(l), the court must first determine “the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant had the relevant amendment been in effect at the time of the initial sentencing.” Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2691 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In making such determination,” the court is prohibited from disturbing its previous “guideline application decisions,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), and furthermore, from imposing a revised term of imprisonment “that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range,” id. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A). See United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166, 171 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); but see U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) (creating
holding that the limitations on the degree of a sentence reduction under  3582c2 are mandatory holding reduction of sentence under  3582c2 based on amendment not listed in  1b110c is not authorized 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 holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under  3582c2 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