With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A (1993). Thus, any error by the district court in denying Oliver eligibility for relief under Amendment 505 was harmless. Nor would Amendment 706 affect his sentence. In Oliver’s § 3582 motion, he conceded that he was held accountable for 11.23 kilograms of cocaine base. Therefore, Oliver’s base offense level would remain unchanged even after Amendment 706 revised § 2Dl.l(c)(l) because he was held responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. In short, Oliver’s sentence was not based on a range subsequently lowered by Amendment 706 and the district court lacked authority to grant him a sentencing reduc tion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B); see also United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, McFadden v. United States, —

A: 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
B: holding that amendment 706 would not affect the guideline ranges for career offenders sentenced under  4b11
C: 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
D: holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under  3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders
A.