Opinion and Order

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendant's pro se motion for reconsideration of this court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction under Amendment 782. ECF No. 1795. Defendant requests a determination of whether he is a candidate for Amendment 780 (and therefore 782) because he received a sentence below his statutory minimum after he was awarded a reduction for substantial assistance. Id.

Pursuant to United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010), "the clear intent of § 3582 is to constrain postjudgment sentence modifications. . . ." Section § 3582(c) "gives a district court one—and only one—opportunity to apply the retroactive amendments and modify the sentence." United States v. Mann, 435 F. App'x 254, 254 (2011) (citing Goodwyn, 596 F.3d at 236); see also United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011). "[T]he rule is the same for both purely successive § 3582(c)(2) motions and § 3582(c)(2)-based motions for reconsideration: A defendant cannot obtain relief on the basis of such motions, but this prohibition is non-jurisdictional and thus subject to waiver." United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 275 (4th Cir. 2017).

Regardless of the prohibition on successive motions, Defendant's motion for reconsideration fails on the merits because he is not entitled to a reduction pursuant to Amendment 782. Defendant was granted a variance at sentencing after a defense motion for a sentence below the advisory guidelines to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants. See ECF No. 1099 at 3 (Statement of Reasons). Although Defendant received a reduction for substantial assistance following sentencing, the variance applied at sentencing cannot be applied in a proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant is correct the variance does not disqualify him from consideration under § 3582(c); however, the court cannot take into account the part of the sentence reduction based on the variance. Therefore, Defendant's guideline range is not lowered by application of Amendment 782. See ECF No. 1791, SRR. Defendant's motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.