at 1330. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough, standing alone, did not provide the court with authority to reduce Lawson’s sentence. See Moreno, 421 F.3d at 1220-21. Although Lawson argues that the court incorrectly found that he qualified as a career offender, and that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, both of these issues lay outside the limited scope of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and the court lacked authority to address these arguments. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781-82. AFFIRMED. 1 . Moreover, we note that Lawson did not raise the issue of whether he was incorrectly sentenced as a career offender until he filed his reply brief. Accordingly, even if this argument were meritorious, we would not address it. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008)
holding argument is waived when raised for first time in reply brief holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived