With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 621 (2005), to conduct a full resentencing hearing and to impose a non-guideline sentence guided only by the sentencing goals set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). He acknowledges that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2008) limits the scope of the proceeding and the extent of the reduction the district court may make under § 3582(c)(2), but contends. that, after Booker, this policy statement must be regarded as advisory, not mandatory. We affirm. We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010). Lara-Alvarez’s claim is without merit because Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2693-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d

A: holding that booker does not prohibit the limitations on a judges discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by  3582c2 and the applicable policy statement by the sentencing commission
B: holding that proceedings under  3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant
C: holding that  3582c2 does not authorize a resentencing but merely provides for a sentence reduction within the bounds established by the sentencing commission and that booker does not apply to  3582c2 proceedings
D: holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2
C.