Jermaine Mathis appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Mathis was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, he concedes the limited scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, but urges this Court to review the drug quantity findings at sentencing in the interest of justice. 1

“[W]e review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless the defendant’s sentence was based upon a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered, the district court considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Mathis’s sentence was based on his career-offender enhancement, and Amendment 750 therefore had no effect on his sentencing range under § 4B1.1. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327 (holding that when a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, the sentence is “based on” the guideline ranges applicable to career offenders under § 4B1.1, not the levels set forth in § 2D1.1). Moreover, the district *853 court was not permitted to change any of the original sentencing calculations in the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings except those affected by a retroactive guideline amendment. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Mathis is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court did not err in denying his motion.

AFFIRMED.