Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dwight Knibbs appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court found Knibbs was not entitled to a lower sentence because his Guidelines sentence did not change after the amendments were applied. We affirm.

We find the district did not abuse its discretion denying Knibbs’ motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as Knibbs suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Knibbs’ motion. 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.