3582(c)(2), and the district court lacks the authority to grant a reduction. Id. In addition, where a defendant is not otherwise eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a U.S. Supreme Court decision, standing alone, does not provide the court with the authority to reduce the defendant’s sentence. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir.2005). A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) does not contemplate a de novo resentenc-ing of the defendant, and “all original sentencing determinations [must] remain unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.2000); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2693-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court correctly found that
holding that  3582c2 permits a district court only to substitute an amended guideline for the guideline used at the original sentencing and that a court lacks the authority to correct mistakes in a defendants original sentence holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not  2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails holding that a defendants assertion that the district court did not believe it had the statutory authority to depart from sentencing guideline range  presents a cognizable claim on appeal