Charles Therion Clayton is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He now appeals pro se the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing *938 Guidelines. The district court denied the motion: Clayton’s career-offender status precluded a sentence reduction. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its authority in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).

A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l). A reduction of a defendant’s term of imprisonment is unauthorized under section 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive guideline amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

The district court committed no error in denying Clayton a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced-by two-the base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). U.S.S.GApp. C, amend. 782. But Clayton was sentenced using the offense level and guideline range for career offenders in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not the offense level for drug quantity in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). Amendment 782 resulted in no lowering of Clayton’s guideline range; Clayton is ineligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012).

Clayton’s reliance on Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), is misplaced. In Freeman, the Supreme Court considered whether defendants who entered into plea agreements recommending a particular sentence, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), were eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). Here, Clayton’s plea agreement contained no agreed-upon sentence or guidelines range. Thus, Freeman is inapplicable.

Because Clayton’s guideline range remained unchanged as a result of Amendment 782, no ex post facto violation occurred. See United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013) (no ex post facto problem exists “[s]o long as the effect of post-conduct amendments to the guidelines is not to increase a defendant’s punishment beyond what it would have been without those amendments.”). And the district court committed no error in treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 as binding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED.