Alva Gene Tate, a federal prisoner convicted of a marijuana offense, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. After review, we affirm. 1

*817 Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify an already incarcerated defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Tate’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is based on Amendment 516 to the Sentencing Guidelines,, which reduced the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c) applicable to offenses involving marijuana plants. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 516 (2003). 2

However, Tate already filed one § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 516 in 1996. The district court denied that motion because Tate’s sentencing range was based on the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c), and thus was not affected by Amendment 516. This Court affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Tate, No. 97-2603, 134 F.3d 386 (11th Cir. Dec. 31, 1997) (unpublished). This ruling became the law of the case and precludes Tate’s second § 3582(e)(2) motion on the same ground. See United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, both the district court and the court of appeals are bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court of appeals in a prior appeal of the same case.... ”). In any event, our recent case law reconfirms that Tate’s Amendment 516 claim is meritless for the reasons previously given by this Court and the district court. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that, where a defendant is sentenced as a career offender and his base offense level is set by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, an amendment that changes the base offense levels in the drug quantity tables of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), has no effect on the sentencing range and the defendant is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

To the extent Tate argues that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), entitles him to a sentence reduction, Booker does not present us with an opportunity to circumvent the law of the case doctrine. See Stinson, 97 F.3d at 469 (outlining three exceptions to the law of the case doctrine, none of which apply to Tate’s present § 3582(c)(2) motion). As the district court correctly concluded, Booker does not provide a basis for § 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1657, 173 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2009).

AFFIRMED.