*623 ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After Mr. Rubio-Ayala pleaded guilty to federal drug charges, the district court consulted the advisory guidelines and found that it recommended a life sentence given Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s criminal history category of I and his adjusted offense level of 43. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) ch. 5, pt. A (2010). Heeding the guidelines’ advice, the district court proceeded to enter the recommended sentence.

But later the sentencing commission, amended the guidelines applicable to Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s crime, retroactively lowering his base offense level by 2 levels. See U.S.S.G. supp. app. C, amends. 782, 788 (2014). In response to this development, Mr. Rubio-Ayala sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The district court granted the motion, recalculated Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s offense level as 42 and his guidelines range as 360 months to life, and resentenced him to the bottom of that range.

In this appeal Mr. Rubio-Ayala takes issue with the district court’s math. He notes that the district court calculated his new adjusted offense level as 42, observes that 43 minus 2 is 41 (not 42), and from this concludes that his revised offense level should be 41 and his amended guidelines range 324 to 405 months. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (2010).

But as counterintuitive as it might first' seem, the district court’s math is exactly right. That’s because the amendments to the sentencing guidelines affected Mr. Ru-bio-Ayala’s base offense level, not his final adjusted offense level. Consider how the math unfolds. At Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s original sentencing, the district court applied a base offense level of 38. See id. § 2Dl.l(c)(l). To this, the court added 2 levels for possession of a firearm, 2 levels for importation of methamphetamine, and 4 levels for playing a leadership role in the offense. And from this the court subtracted 2 levels for acceptance of responsibility. Tallying up these enhancements and reductions, the district court calculated a final adjusted offense level of 44. But the advisory guidelines’ “sentencing table” tops off at level 43, so the district court treated Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s offense level as if it were just that. See id. ch. 5, pt. A Application Note 2. Then along came Amendments 782 and 788. By their terms, they authorized the district court to consider retroactively reducing Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s base offense level. See U.S.S.G. supp. app. C, amends. 782, 784 (2014). So' it is the district court properly recalculated Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s guidelines range beginning with a base offense level of 36 instead of 38. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(l) (2010), mth U.S.S.G. supp. app. C, amend. 782 (2014). Adding to and subtracting from this new base offense level the same enhancements and deductions it applied at Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s original sentencing, the district court landed on a new adjusted offense level of 42. And as the district court correctly concluded, this new adjusted offense level yields a guidelines range of 360 months to life in prison. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (2010).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mr. Rubio-Ayala’s motion to *624 proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and he is reminded of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full.