Alfred George Stokes, proceeding pro se, challenges the denial of his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following an amendment to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 (applicable to crimes involving controlled substances). The district court ruled he was ineligible for a sentence modification because he could have been sentenced as a career offender under Guideline § 4B1.1 (applicable to offenders who are: over 18 years old, committed a erime-of-violence or controlled-substance felony, and had committed at least two prior, crime-of-violenee or controlled-substance felonies). Although Stokes concedes he qualified as a career offender at the time of sentencing, he contends he is eligible for a modification because the court instead determined his offense level under the above-referenced Guideline § 2D1.1.

The court’s decision to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, e.g., United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1995); but defendant’s eligibility for a sentence reduction, the issue at hand, is reviewed de novo, United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009).

Application Note 1(A) to Guideline § 1B1.10 (pertaining to reduction of term of imprisonment with amendment of the Guidelines) prohibits modifying a sentence if “the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline”. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.l(A); United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding Application Note 1(A) to Guideline § 1B1.10 is authoritative). In this instance, the operation of the career-offender Guideline prevented the court’s modifying Stokes’ sentence pursuant j;o 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.l(A); U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(3).

AFFIRMED.