Walter Grandison, proceeding pro se, appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following its grant of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Grandison argues the district court erred in determining the extent of his sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Grandi-son contends the court’s failure to consider the § 3553(a) factors indicates it might not have appreciated the extent of its discretion to impose a lower sentence in light of the relevant factors. After review, we affirm. 1

*13 Here, the district court granted Grandi-soné § 3582(c)(2) motion and sentenced him to 324 months’ imprisonment, the lowest end of the amended guideline range of 324-365 months’ imprisonment. The district court failed to explicitly state it considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[I]f it is not possible to determine from the record whether the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, we must vacate and remand the case to the district court.”). Even if the court erred by not considering the § 3553(a) factors, such error was harmless because the district court lacked the authority to sentence Grandison below the amended guideline range sentence. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (stating that, generally, the court “shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”); United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1193-94 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding the district court erred in sentencing the defendant below the amended guideline range in violation of the guidelines policy statements), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2382, 173 L.Ed.2d 1300 (2009).

AFFIRMED.