Reginald Wayne Yauman, federal prisoner # 16025-179, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Yauman to 135 months of imprisonment on the crack cocaine count and a mandatory, consecutive 60-month sentence on the firearms count. Following the enactment of Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which effectively reduced the base offense level for cases involving crack co.caine by two levels, Yauman moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court granted Yauman’s motion and reduced his sentence by 75 months. The court subsequently .issued a sua sponte order that amended the sentence reduction to 15 months. The judgment reflects that the sentence consists of 120 months, which is the statutory minimum, on the crack cocaine count, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the firearms count.

Yauman now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the amended order reducing his sentence on the drug charge by 15 months. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion because the statutory minimum sentence on the drug count does not adequately take into account the sentencing factor's set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss, for summary affir-mance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time within which to file a brief.

The district court could not have imposed a guidelines sentence that was lower than the statutorily mandated minimum penalty. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008). Yauman has not shown that he may be sentenced below the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 129 S.Ct. 212, 172 L.Ed.2d 157 (2008).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the motions to dismiss and for an exten *739 sion of time are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.