Defendant-Appellant Ward Larray Price appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his life sentence. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
We briefly review Price’s history in this court before turning to the present appeal. Price was convicted by a jury on two counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii). On appeal, we affirmed his conviction but remanded the case for resentencing based on a procedural error.
United States v. Price,
The subject of the present appeal is the district court’s denial of Price’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Price argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Booker,
DISCUSSION
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a
court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ... [,] in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant 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.
By the terms of the statute, then, the court only has authority to modify a sentence *1007 when the range has been lowered “by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§ ] 994(o).” 1
We have explained that “ ‘[a] district court is authorized to modify a [d]efendant’s sentence only in specified instances where Congress has
expressly
granted the court jurisdiction to do so.’ ”
United States v. Green,
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. Price’s motion to proceed in forma pau-peris on appeal is GRANTED.
Notes
. 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) provides that
[t]he [Sentencing] Commission periodically shall review and revise, in consideration of comments and data coming to its attention, the guidelines promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this section. In fulfilling its duties and in exercising its powers, the Commission shall consult with authorities on, and individual and institutional representatives of, various aspects of the Federal criminal justice system. The United States Probation System, the Bureau of Prisons, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, and a representative of the Federal Public Defenders shall submit to the Commission any observations, comments, or questions pertinent to the work of the Commission whenever they believe such communication would be useful, and shall, at least annually, submit to the Commission a written report commenting on the operation of the Commission's guidelines, suggesting changes in the guidelines that appear to be warranted, and otherwise assessing the Commission’s work.
. All of our sister circuits to consider whether
Booker
is relevant to a motion for a reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) have reached the same conclusion.
See United States v. Rolle,