OPINION

Curtis L. McKeithan, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. We will affirm the District Court’s order.

McKeithan was convicted by a jury in 2001 of drug trafficking and was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 420 months. After a number of unsuccessful post-conviction motions, McKeithan filed a motion in May 2012 to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), referring to the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”), and “[t]he retroactive Amendment 706 [that] went into [e]ffeet on November 1, 2012[sic] and listed under [United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) ] § 1B1.1, replacing Amendment 706.” The District Court denied relief, noting that the FSA did not apply retroactively, but on appeal, we construed McKeithan’s motion as raising a claim for reduction of sentence under Amendment 750, which does apply retroactively, per U.S.S.G. § lBl.l(c). We remanded to the District Court to consider the merits of McKeithan’s Amendment 750 argument. See C.A. No. 12-2919.

On remand, the District Court ordered briefing. The Government conceded that McKeithan was eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 750, but opposed McKeithan’s attempts to raise other issues 1 in connection with his sentence. The District Court agreed with the Government’s position. It reduced McKeithan’s sentence to 352 months’ imprisonment, but found that his other sentencing claims were not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. McKeithan timely appealed.

The District Court properly determined that the scope of its resentencing was limited to any changes that would result from application of the retroactive amendment, here, Amendment 750. United States v. McBride, 283 F.3d 612, 615-16 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 3582(c)(2) “does not authorize a resentencing,” but only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the [United States Sentencing] Commission.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831-32, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Thus, the District Court lacked the authority to address any of McKeithan’s claims that were unaffected by the Commission’s amendment. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.