ORDER & REASONS

LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.

Before the Court is pro se defendant Michael Martin's ("Martin") motion1 for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and Amendment 782.2 For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

In May of 2016, Judge Engelhardt denied Martin's request for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Section 3582 and Amendment 782.3 Judge Engelhardt determined that Martin was ineligible for a Section 3582 sentence reduction because of his "career offender status" and the fact that there had been "no change in his offense level calculation."4 Martin's present motion differs from his previous motion only in that he now relies on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hughes v. United States, No. 17-155 (U.S. June 4, 2018).

Hughes has no effect on Judge Engelhardt's prior findings or their legal consequences. In Hughes, the Supreme Court held that "a sentence imposed pursuant to a Type-C agreement is `based on' the defendant's Guidelines range so long as the range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement." Hughes, slip op. at 9.5 A Type-C agreement is a plea agreement entered into pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Id. at 5. Hughes applies to defendants who entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. However, Martin's plea agreement was not made pursuant to that rule, meaning Hughes is inapplicable to his case.6

Furthermore, although Hughes clarified the scope of Section 3582, that section only authorizes a sentence reduction in those cases in which a defendant's sentencing range has been subsequently lowered. Id. at 9. Amendment 782 did not change Martin's base offense level, meaning it did not lower his recommended sentencing range. As a result—regardless of the Hughes decision—Martin remains ineligible for a Section 3582 sentence reduction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.