Cir.1997). Eligibility for consideration under § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment that lowers the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008). Clark’s Guideline range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career-offender status. The district court therefore was correct in concluding that a sentence reduction was not permitted under § 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Moreover, Clark’s argument that the district court had the discretion to reduce his sentence under § 3582 in light of Booker is unavailing because “the concerns at issue in Booker do not apply in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.” Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238; see also United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although the Guidelines must be treated as
holding that the act is not retroactive holding claim is not cognizable holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2 holding that issues that do not apply to retroactive guidelines amendments are not cognizable under  3582c2 holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant