the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, (n.l). We readily reject Watson’s argument that the district court erred in failing to reduce his sentences based on Amendment 709, as that amendment is not among those listed in § lB1.10(c) as retroactively applicable. To the extent Watson asserts that he was entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 706, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156, and cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines holding that a district court is entitled to disagree with the career offender guideline holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines holding that a district court lacks authority under  3582c2 to reduce a defendants sentence when the defendant was sentenced under  4b11 as a career offender holding that a defendant whose sentence is based on his status as a career offender under  4b11 is not entitled to  3582c2 relief because amendments 706 and 713 do not lower the applicable guideline range for a career offender