Daniel Joseph King, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). King argues the district court erred in denying his motion because his original, below-guidelines sentence was the result of a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 substantial assistance departure. As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we weave them into the discussion only as necessary. Upon review, 1 we affirm.

*966 The district court did not err in denying King’s motion because (1) his original sentence of 75 months was already below the 168-month minimum of his amended guideline range, 2 and (2) the Government never moved for a § 5K1.1 downward departure for substantial assistance. When a defendant’s original sentence is already lower than the minimum of her amended guidelines range, she is not eligible for a reduction below the amended guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A); see United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2013). That is the precisely the ease here. King’s 75-month sentence was well below the 168-month minimum of his amended guidelines range.

Nonetheless, a defendant is still eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) if his original sentence was below the amended guidelines range “because of a reduction based upon the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities [pursuant to § 5K1.1].” Colon, 707 F.3d at 1259; § lB1.10(b)(2)(B). A substantial assistance departure is available upon a “motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.” § 5K1.1. The record belies King’s assertion that he received a § 5K1.1 substantial assistance departure. The district court’s comments at the sentencing hearing explicitly indicate King’s below-guidelines sentence was attributable to a § 3553(a) downward variance, not a § 5K1.1 motion. We accordingly affirm.

AFFIRMED.