OPINION
Gаrrett Johnson pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He faced a 240-month mandatory minimum sentence, as required by statute, but the government moved the district court to grant a lower sentence basеd on Johnson’s substantial assistance. The court granted the government’s motion and sentenced Johnson to 108 months’ imprisonment.
Johnson subsequently filed a motion for a further reduction in his sentence based on the retroactive revisions to the United States Sentencing Guidelines regarding crack-cocaine convictions. The district court denied Johnson’s motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider this new ground because the sentence was imposed pursuant to the stаtutory mandatory minimum for Johnson’s offense, not the subsequently amended Guidelines. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual background
Johnson pled guilty to and was convicted of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The Probation Office prepared a Presentence Report using the 2003 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Based on a finding that the conspiracy involved at least 500 grams of crack cocaine, but not more than 1.5 kilograms, his offense level was set at 36. That number, in conjunction with Johnson’s Category III criminal history, resulted in a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months. But Johnson was also subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), *421 meaning that his effeсtive Guidelines range was 240 to 293 months of imprisonment.
Prior to sentencing, the government filed a motion for a downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). That section authorizes a district court to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum bаsed on a defendant’s substantial assistance. At the October 2004 sentencing hearing, the court granted the three-level departure suggested in the motion and sentenced Johnson to 108 months’ imprisonment. Johnson did not appeal.
Severаl years after Johnson’s sentencing, Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced the base offense level for most crack-cocaine offenses by two levels. This caused Johnson to file a pro se motion in February 2008 that sought аn additional sentence reduction in light of the amended Guidelines. The district court appointed counsel for Johnson and ordered the parties to file a joint motion regarding the potential applicability of the retroаctive amendment. Johnson and the government agreed that his amended base offense level was 34, but differed on whether the amendment authorized the court to modify the sentence.
The government argued that because Johnson’s sentence was not based on a Guidelines range lowered by Amendment 706, the court lacked jurisdiction to reduce it any further. Johnson conceded that the amendment did not lower his Guidelines sentence, which was set by the statutory mandatory minimum. But he claimed that the amendment did lower his Guidelines range, and that a sentence reduction was accordingly authorized and appropriate. Johnson also filed an amended motion for a sentence reduction and sought an evidentiary hearing, which the government opposed.
In May 2008, the district court issued an order denying a further reduction of his sentence. The court explained its reasoning as follows:
Neither the Guidelines, nor the statute, nor the applicablе precedents supports the defendant’s position and this Court is constrained to find, upon the facts of this case and upon the plain language of § 3582(c), that this Court does not have the authority to reduce defendant’s sentence .... The defendant was subject to the mandatory term of imprisonment provided by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) both before and after Amendment 706. Accordingly, § 3582(c) does not authorize a reduction in his sentence.
Moreover, the court noted, Johnson’s sentence hаd been “determined not by reference to a guideline range but rather to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.” The court concluded by clarifying that, even if it had jurisdiction to reduce Johnson’s sentence, it would not have exercised its discretion to do so. Johnson timely appealed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Statutory background
A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence only as provided by statute.
United States v. Ross,
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that *422 has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendаnt or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
In § 1B1.10 of the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission has identified those amendments that may be applied retroactively pursuant to the above policy statement and has also articulated the proper procedures for implementing the amendment in a case already concluded. On December 11, 2007, the Commission issued a revised version of § 1B1.10, which emphasizes the limited nature оf relief available under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Revised § lB1.10(a), which became effective on March 3, 2008, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1) In General. — In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in thе defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.
(2) Exclusions. — A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if—
(A) None of the amendments listed in subsectiоn [§ lB1.10](c) is applicable to the defendant; or
(B) An amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.
U.S.S.G. § IBl.lO(a) (amended Dec. 11, 2007). In addition, § 1B1.10 directs that “the court shall substitutе only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (b)(1).
Thе amendment in question in this case is Amendment 706, effective November 1, 2007, which reduced the base offense level for most crack offenses. Amendment 706 was further amended by the technical and conforming amendments set forth in Amendment 711, also еffective November 1, 2007. Amendment 706 is one of the amendments listed in § lB1.10(c) as having retroactive effect. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e).
B. Application of Amendment 706 to Johnson
Johnson argues that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e). He reаsons that the retroactive amendment regarding crack cocaine had the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines range from 235-293 months to 188-235 months. Although he concedes that he is subject to the statutory mandatory-minimum term оf 240 months, Johnson argues that the district court never actually applied the mandatory minimum because it imposed a below-minimum, 108-month sentence in response to the government’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). In sum, Johnson con *423 tends that, “[bjecausе the guideline range has been reduced and the sentence imposed was based upon a guideline range that has since been reduced, the district court should have determined that it had authority to reduce the sentence.”
Johnson’s argument lacks merit because he was not in fact sentenced based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently reduced. Rather, his sentence was based on the mandatory minimum imposed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which remained unchanged by Guidelines Amendment 706. “Whеre a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guidelines range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b);
accord United States v. Goff,
“[T]he appropriate starting point for calculating a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) is the mandatory minimum sentence itself.”
United States v. Stewart,
Nor did the district court, as Johnson claims, conflate the concept of a Guidelines
range
with that of a Guidelines
sentence.
Where a mandatory minimum sentence exceeds the otherwise applicable Guidelines range — as it would were Johnson to be resentenced today — it replaces thаt Guidelines range.
See, e.g., United States v. Mooneyham,
Finally, even assuming for the sake of аrgument that the district court had discretion to modify Johnson’s sentence, no such reduction was warranted. A reduction is not automatic; instead, the district court has discretion within the limits of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. “[T]he court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the *424 Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2).
To succeed on this point, Johnson must show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction.
United States v. Peveler,
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.