Appellant Vincent Keith Raines, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se motion for a reduced sentence, which he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Raines based his motion on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district court denied Raines’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, finding that he was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, such that Amendment 706 did not lower the guideline range pursuant to which he was sentenced. On *811 appeal, Raines submits that the district court erred in determining that he was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief because his sentence was based on his guideline range calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, state that a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “[a]n amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The commentary elaborates that a reduction is not authorized if an applicable amendment does not lower a defendant’s applicable guideline range “because of the operation of another guideline.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)).

Because the district court sentenced Raines as a career offender under § 4B1.1, we conclude that the crack cocaine base offense level played no ultimate role in his sentence, and therefore, the district court correctly determined that he was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, (n. 1(A)); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the district court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) reductions because, “although Amendment 706 would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1”), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Raines’s motion for a reduced sentence.

AFFIRMED.