With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in [U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c)], the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” and “any such reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l). The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 instructs that a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized when “an amendment ... is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range 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, cmt. n. 1(A); see also Moore, 541 F.3d at 1328 (<HOLDING>). A term of imprisonment to the applicable

A: holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline
B: holding that the district court lacked authority under  3582c2 to grant a sentencing reduction to defendants who were career offenders sentenced under ussg  4b11 because amendment 706 would not ultimately affect their guideline ranges
C: holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not  2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range
D: holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under  3582
A.