Andy Pierre, through counsel, appeals from the district court’s denial of his pro se motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, because his sentence was based, at least in part, on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, and he challenges his career offender designation based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.

We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the Sentencing Guidelines and the scope of its authority' under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the prison sentence of a “defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l). Section 3582(c)(2) does not grant the district court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues, including collateral attacks' on a sentence. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000). Instead, collateral attacks must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id.

For a defendant to be eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the Sentencing Commission must have amended the guidehne at issue, the. amendment must have lowered the defendant’s sentencing range, and the amendment must also be listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(d). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l) & comment. (n.l(A)). Amendment 782 provided for a two-level reduction in base offense levels for most drug quantities listed in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c), and may serve, when applicable, as the basis for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.GApp. C, amend. 782; Id. § lB1.10(d).

However, “[wjhere a retroactively applicable guidehne amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330. Thus, where a defendant’s sentence was based on the guidehne range for a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, an amendment to the base offense levels apphcable to the defendant under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 does not affect the guidehne range, because the defendant’s base offense level under § 2D1.1 “played no role” in the calculation of the guidehne range. Id. at 1327, 1330.

The district court did not err when it denied Pierre’s motion for a reduction of his sentence because he was sentenced based on the career offender guidehne under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, rather than the drug quantity tables under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Therefore, he is ineligible for relief based on Amendment 782, because the amendment did not alter his guidehne range. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327, 1330. Although Pierre now attempts to challenge his ca *858 reer offender designation, he cannot challenge that determination in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782.

AFFIRMED.