and (2) United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558,169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), gave the court authority to reduce his sentence. “We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentence range that has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any red uments are foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . This case is before this court
holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under  2255 holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply to  3582c2 proceedings and that booker and kimbrough do not prohibit the limitations on a judges discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by  3582c2 and the applicable policy statement by the sentencing commission holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2 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