prior decision in Rhodes, where we held that pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) the policy statements in § IB 1.10 are binding on district courts and that "Booker simply has no bearing on sentencing modification proceedings conducted under § 3582(c)(2).” 549 F.3d at 840. 2 . In a post -Dillon supplemental brief, appellants argue, citing Justice Stevens’ dissent in Dillon, that the policy statements in § IB 1.10 raise separation-of-powers issues "because Congress never envisioned policy statements would be used to enforce jurisdictional elements of the guidelines.” Aplt. Supp. Br. at 3. As the government notes in its own post-Dillon brief, however, this court has previously rejected a similar separation-of-powers challenge to § IB 1.10. United States v. Dryden, 563 F.3d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Absent an intervening en banc decision from
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 the lowering requirement of  3582c2 is identical to the requirement in ussg  ib 110a2 that the amendment to the guidelines have the effect of lowering the defendants applicable guideline range  holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under  3582 holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline