Defendant-Appellant Michael Martin, Jr., federal prisoner # 29422-034, appeals the district court’s denial of a sentence *501 reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the amendment to the Guidelines that implemented the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) of 2010. He contends that, even though he was sentenced as a career offender, § 3582(c) allows the district court to reevaluate whether, given his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, his sentence should be reduced. Martin appears to assert alternatively that he was not sentenced as a career offender. He also complains, for the first time in his reply brief, that the government failed to carry its burden of proof at sentencing to show that he was a career offender. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010).

Martin was sentenced pursuant to the career offender guidelines provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Contrary to Martin’s claim, our precedent forecloses his assertion that the career offender Guideline does not preclude a reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 790-91 & n. 9 (5th Cir. 2009).

As the district court determined that Martin was ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), it was not required to determine whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors warranted a reduction. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-92, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Moreover, the principles of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and its progeny do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2692; United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237-39 (5th Cir. 2009). Martin’s arguments based on the inapposite Supreme Court opinions in Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) and Pepper v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011), and on inapposite extra-circuit opinions, are also unavailing.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martin’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Doublin, 572 F.3d at 237. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.