United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 08-2406
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Southern District of Iowa.
James Wesley Reddix,                    *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: July 6, 2009
                                Filed: July 28, 2009
                                 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

      James Reddix appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for a
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to
the Sentencing Guidelines. We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See
United States v. Clarke, 

, 956 (8th Cir. 2009).

      Reddix was found guilty by a jury of distributing and conspiring to distribute
cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The Guidelines

      1
        The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
calculations--base offense level of 38, 4-level enhancement for role in the offense,
total offense level of 42, and Category VI criminal history--yielded a range of 360
months to life in prison, and the district court sentenced him to 360 months.
Amendment 706 reduces Reddix’s total offense level from 42 to 40, but with a
Category VI criminal history, his sentencing range remains 360 months to life. Thus,
a reduction is not permitted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court may modify term if
“sentencing range” is subsequently lowered by Commission and reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by Commission); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (reduction is not authorized if amendment does not lower
defendant’s applicable Guidelines range), (b)(2)(A) (district court may not reduce
defendant’s sentence below minimum of amended Guidelines range); cf. United States
v. Baylor, 

, 673 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (because original and post-
amendment ranges were same, district court did not have authority to grant
§ 3582(c)(2) motion); see also United States v. Starks, 

, 840-42 (8th Cir.
2009) (rejecting argument that United States v. Booker, 

 (2005), applies
to modification proceedings under § 3582(c)(2)).

       Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to
withdraw on the condition that counsel inform Reddix about the procedures for filing
petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.
                        ______________________________




                                          2
                                         -2-