With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is warranted under the particular circumstances. See id. Mr. Carter argued in the district court that his sentence should be reduced based on Amendment 709, which modified the manner in which a defendant’s criminal history score is determined. See USSG App’x C Supp., Amend. 709 (Nov. 1, 2007). Amendment 709 became effective on November 1, 2007, see id., but it is not listed as one of the covered amendments in USSG Manual § 1B1.10(c). Therefore, in considering Mr. Carter’s motion, the district court correctly concluded at the first step in the analysis that a reduction in Mr. Carter’s term of imprisonment was not consistent with the policy statement in § 1B1.10 and was therefore not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Torres-Aquino, 334 F.3d 939, 940-41 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767, 768

A: holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines
B: holding reduction of sentence under  3582c2 based on amendment not listed in  1b110c is not authorized
C: holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range
D: 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
B.