OPINION *

Pro se appellant Michael Rinaldi appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)., We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review is plenary. United States v. Sava-ni, 733 F.3d 56, 60 (3d Cir. 2013). For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm.

In June 1999, a jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania found Rinaldi guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), using a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and possession of firearms by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After reviewing the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and two addenda, the District Court determined that Rinaldi qualified as a career offender under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Based on that designation, Rinaldi’s Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment. However, the District Court concluded that Rinaldi’s career-offender status significantly overrepresented his criminal history. The Court therefore departed downward, and sentenced Rinal-di to an aggregate term of 248 months’ imprisonment. This sentence is within the Guidelines range that would have applied if Rinaldi were not a career offender. On direct appeal, we affirmed. United States v. Rinaldi 248 F.3d 1131 (3d Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision). '

Rinaldi has since challenged his conviction and sentence in a variety of ways. As relevant here, Rinaldi filed a motion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels assigned to most drug quantities under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c) by two levels. The District Court denied Rinaldi’s motion. Rinaldi then filed a timely notice of appeal. 1

We agree with the District Court’s decision to deny Rinaldi’s motion. A district court generally cannot “modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed” unless a defendant is eligible for a reduction pursuant to § 3582(c). Section 3582(c)(2) allows for a reduction if (1) the sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” and (2) “a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013).

*581 Here, a reduction in Rinaldi’s sentence would not be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” A reduction in a sentence-is not consistent with the relevant policy statement unless the amendment has “the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B). The Guidelines define “applicable guideline range” as “the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to § lBl.l(a), which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (emphasis added); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 6. As we have held in similar cases, this means that Rinaldi’s applicable guideline range is the “range calculated pursuant to the career offender designation of § 4B1.1, and not the range calculated after applying any departure or variance.” Flemming, 723 F.3d at 412; see also United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527, 534 (3d Cir. 2012). 2 Accordingly, Amendment 782 — which alters the offense levels for drug crimes but does not affect the offense levels for career offenders — would not lower Rinaldi’s applicable guidelines range, and it would thus be contrary to the applicable policy statement to reduce Rinaldi’s sentence.

We will therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment.