With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir.1997). Eligibility for consideration under § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment that lowers the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008). Clark’s Guideline range was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, but rather from his career-offender status. The district court therefore was correct in concluding that a sentence reduction was not permitted under § 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Moreover, Clark’s argument that the district court had the discretion to reduce his sentence under § 3582 in light of Booker is unavailing because “the concerns at issue in Booker do not apply in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.” Doublin, 572 F.3d at 238; see also United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although the Guidelines must be treated as

A: holding that the act is not retroactive
B: holding that booker and kimbrough do not apply at resentencing proceedings under  3582c2
C: holding that issues that do not apply to retroactive guidelines amendments are not cognizable under  3582c2
D: holding claim is not cognizable
C.