Edwin T. Limbrick, a federal prisoner, was convicted on several counts of conspiracy and obstruction of interstate commerce by attempted robbery and the use of a firearm in connection with the attempted robberies. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 entitle him to a lower sentencing range for his offenses.

Because none of the enhancements to his two obstruction-of-commerce offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 required the involvement of a firearm, the amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 are not relevant to Lim-brick’s sentence. Compare United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 642-44 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Limbrick has shown no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of his motion. United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.