MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ORDER

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are Defendant's motions, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), to reduce Defendant's sentence based on a subsequent reduction in the applicable sentencing guideline. (ECF Nos. 151 and 155.) On November 1, 2014, the United States Sentencing Guidelines were amended resulting in reductions to the guideline applicable to drug trafficking offenses, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 ("Amendment 782"). The guideline reduction was given retroactive effect. Pursuant to the order entered on October 21, 2015, this case was designated for standard consideration. (ECF No. 156.) The Court has received the original Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), original Judgment and Commitment Order and Statement of Reasons, plea agreement, and addendum to the PSI from the Probation Office, and received any materials submitted by the parties on this issue.

On August 4, 2011, this Court sentenced Defendant to a term of 72 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (ECF No. 136.) With regard to the sentencing guidelines, the Court found an adjusted offense level of 34, reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility for a total offense level of 31. Combined with a criminal history category of II, this yielded a guidelines imprisonment range of 121-151 months. (ECF No. 134.) Defendant was ultimately given a below-guideline sentence of 72 months based on the Court's decision to grant a downward variance. (Id.)

As a result of Amendment 782's two-level reduction to Defendant's guideline offense level, Defendant's guideline range has been correspondingly reduced to 97-121 months. However, because the Court granted a variance in sentencing Defendant, his original 72-month sentence is still well below the minimum guideline range established by the new amendment. When that is the case, the guidelines require that, unless the original below-guideline sentence was the result of a government motion indicating substantial assistance, "the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2) (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2015).1 As noted above, applying the amended § 2D1.1 table to Defendant's offense, as directed by § 1B1.10(b)(1), yields a guideline range of 97-121 months. Within the limited context of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not apply and the policy statement articulated in § 1B1.10 of the guidelines is binding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). Accordingly, this Court has no authority to reduce Defendant's sentence as a result of Amendment 782.2

Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction based on the 2014 amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Accordingly, Defendant's motions for a sentence reduction, (ECF Nos. 151 and 155), are DENIED. Further pending in this case is Defendant's motion to seal memorandum of Defendant, (ECF No. 164). For the reasons cited in the motion, which the Court finds support the relief requested, the Court GRANTS the motion, and DIRECTS the Clerk to filed Defendant's memorandum UNDER SEAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal.