circumstances. Id, at 2690-91. “Section 3582(c)(2)’s text, together with its narrow scope, shows that Congress intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.” Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2691. Consistent with its “narrow view” of the statute, id. at 2690, the Court held that district courts cannot recalculate aspects of a sentence that are unaffected by a retroactively applicable amendment to the Guidelines. See id. at 2694 (“Because the aspects of his sentence that [defendant] seeks to correct were not affected by the Commission’s amendment to § 2D1.1, they are outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2), and the District Court properly declined to address them.”); see also McGee, 615 F.3d at 1290 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Freeman v. United States, the
holding that  3582c2 does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended guidelines range holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to  3582c2 proceedings 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 proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant holding that  3582c2 does not permit district courts to engage in fullscale resentencings of defendants