Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Osmond O’Neil Christie appeals a district court order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) seeking a reduction to his sentence as a result of Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard). The district court correctly found Christie was not eligible for relief under the Amendments because it did not result in a reduced base offense level. * Christie’s claims that he was entitled to a full resen-tencing proceeding, application of the rule from United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and a sentence below the Guidelines are foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (In a proceeding under § 3582(c), “a district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). Christie’s claim that his relevant conduct did not include crack cocaine should have been raised on appeal and is not now reviewable by this court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.