§ 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a defendant’s sentence that was based on a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statement states that a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) unless an amendment listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c) is applicable to the defendant. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(A), p. s. (Nov.2009). Amendment 709 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c), p.s. Where an amendment is not listed in § lB1.10(c), it cannot serve as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Here, the district court
holding that although the amendment at issue was a clarifying amendment and therefore applied retroactively in the context of direct appeals and habeas petitions it could not serve as the basis for a  3582c2 reduction because it was not listed in  lb110c holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case holding that only the amendments listed in  lb110c may be applied retroactively using a  3582e2 motion holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions holding that only the amendments listed in  lb110c may be applied retroactively using a  3582c2 motion