Douglas Jackson, federal prisoner # 34028-177, proceeding pro se on appeal from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction, pleaded guilty, with a written plea agreement, to possession, with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Although Jackson was determined to be a career offender, the court calculated his sentencing range based on his offense level, under Guideline § 2D1.1, because it was higher than the career-offender offense level, under Guideline § 4B1.1. Prior to the motion at issue, Jackson successfully moved to reduce his sentence, lowering his base offense level to 34, under § 2D1.1, the same as his career-offender offense level, under § 4B1.1.

The district court denied the instant 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion pursuant to Amendment 782, concluding Jackson was ineligible for the reduction. In challenging that denial and his motion for reconsideration, Jackson asserts he is eligible for a sentence reduction based on that amendment.

The court’s authority to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed de novo. United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by an amendment to the advisory Guidelines. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendment 782, *870 which is retroactive, reduced the base-offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C., Amends. 782, 788.

Nevertheless, that Jackson’s offense level has been reduced, alone, does not entitle him to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346, 349 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Amendment 782 would reduce Jackson’s § 2D1.1 offense level, the court’s determining it would use Jackson’s career-offender offense level of 34, under § 4B1.1(b), because it is higher than that produced by § 2D1.1 following the amendment, was proper. Id. at 348-49. Jackson’s sentencing range remains unchanged by the amendment; therefore, the court correctly determined it lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) to lower his sentence. See id.

AFFIRMED.