ORDER

WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Modify Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) and Amendment 599. (Doc. 40.) To the extent that Defendant predicates his motion on Amendment 599, this claim must fail because it is procedurally improper. 18 U.S.C. § 3582 allows the district court to modify the sentence of a prisoner "who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." Because Amendment 599 was effective on November 1, 2000, U.S.S.G. App. C., Amend. 599, it was in effect at the time of Defendant's sentencing on March 4, 2015 and therefore cannot operate to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. United States v. Owens, 325 F. App'x 765, 766 (11th Cir. 2009) . As a result, that portion of Defendant's motion predicated on an amendment to the sentencing guidelines under § 3582 is DENIED.

In his motion, however, Defendant also argues that he was sentenced above the statutory maximum, his sentence violates the rule of lenity, he lacked notice of the sentence contemplated by the court, he was actually innocent of one of the offenses to which he pled guilty, and that his sentence violates the principles of double jeopardy. The proper vehicle for these types of claims is a motion to vacate or set aside sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As a result, this court REFERS the motion to Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith with instructions to issue the proper warnings as required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) . Should Defendant choose to proceed with his motion without amendment or withdrawal, the Magistrate Judge will construe this motion as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

SO ORDERED.