ORDER
Robert L. Poole, Jr., appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocаine, cocaine base, and marijuana (Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute (Count 12), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He also appeals his concurrent 151-month prison sentences and five-year supervised-release terms. The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needеd. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Poole first contends that a retroactive amendment to the guideline for cocaine-base offеnses requires that his case be remanded for resentencing. The government agrees that the case should be remanded, but it contends that this court should first affirm the sentence and then remand to the district court so that the lower court can consider a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Effective November 1, 2007, USSG § 2Dl.l(c) was amended to reduce the base offensе level for most crack cocaine offenses. USSG, App. C, Amend. 706. The amendment adjusts downward by two levels the base offense levels for the quantities of crack. In Poole’s case, the district court assessed a base offense level of 32, under USSG § 2Dl.l(с)(4), based on the jury’s finding that he was responsible for 50 or more grams of cocaine base. Under the amendment, § 2Dl.l(c)(5) prescribеs a base level of 30 for the same quantity. Effective March 3, 2008, the amendments to the cocaine-base guideline were mаde retroactive, so that a defendant serving an eligible cocaine-base sentence can file a motion for a sentence reduction. See 73 Fed.Reg. 217-01 (Jan. 2, 2008); *646 § lB1.10(a)(l), (c) (Supp.2008); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Section lB1.10(a)(l) states that when the guideline range applicable to a federal prisoner has “subsequently been lowered as a result” of a guideline amendment listed in subsection (c), the district court may reduce the рrisoner’s sentence as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). When an amendment like amendment 706 applies retroactively under § lB1.10(c), the prоper procedure is for this court to affirm the sentence but to remand for consideration of whether the prisoner is entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c).
See United States v. Ursery,
Second, Poole challenges the sufficiency of the еvidence to support his convictions. Poole emphasizes that the government’s primary witness, confidential informant (Cl) Jeff Estelle, was an “admitted liar” and that the investigating agent who worked with Estelle, Officer Karen McElroy, had “no independent knowledge оr information” to support Estelle’s allegations about his dealings with Poole. His conclusion appears to be that the jury wаs “wrong” because it chose to believe Estelle’s testimony.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidenсe in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether any rational trier of fact could accept the evidence as establishing each of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
The evidence was easily sufficient to support Poole’s convictions. Codefendаnt Charles Bailey, the leader of the drug conspiracy, testified for the government that he and others, including his father, codefеndant Samuel Thornton, dealt in multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine. Bailey did not deal drugs directly with Poole, who was a cousin to Bаiley and Thornton, but did observe Poole and Thornton hang out together and had seen Poole use cocaine.
The Cl, Estellе, was the primary source of testimony for Poole’s involvement in the conspiracy. Estelle testified that, in early November 2003, hе traveled with Poole and Thornton from Lima, Ohio, to Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he personally observed Poole and Thorntоn buy two ounces of crack cocaine. Poole rode in Estelle’s car during this trip, and Poole indicated to Estelle that he wanted to “do his own thing” because Thornton was “slowing him down.” Estelle understood Poole to be referring to drug trafficking. Bailey’s testimоny regarding the scope of the conspiracy and Estelle’s testimony regarding *647 Poole’s participation set forth the bаsis for the conspiracy count as it pertained to Poole.
On December 15, 2003, investigators arranged for Estelle to conduct a controlled drug buy from Thornton. Estelle had several telephone conversations with Thornton and one with Poole, the clear import of which was that Thornton and Poole were preparing crack cocaine for sale to Estelle. Estelle met Thornton and Poole at a Lima intersection, where he gave Thornton $1,000, which had been provided by investigators, in return for crack cocaine. Estelle was wearing a wire for this transaction. Surveilling officers determined that the car in which Thornton and Poole arrived was registered to Poole. The December 15, 2003, transaction was the basis for Count 12.
Estelle’s testimony was more than sufficient to establish that Poole knew about the drug-trafficking conspiracy and participated in it,
see Gardner,
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the convictions and sentences. However, we remand for consideration of whether Poole is entitled to a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).