¶1 Charles Barry Smith, federal prisoner #27483-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. Smith filed a timely notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(2) (“Exclude intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is less than 11 days.”). Smith asserts that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 645, as that recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines retroactively applies to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)’s determination of concurrent sentence calculation.
¶2 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission ..., if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) applies only to amendments to the sentencing guidelines that operate retroactively, as set forth in subsection (c) of the applicable policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir.1996).
¶3 Amendment 645 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Thus, an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 645 would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. See id. at 218. Amendment 645 therefore cannot be given retroactive *397 effect in the context of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id.
¶4 In light of the foregoing, the district court lacked the authority to reduce Smith’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 515 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1994). The district court’s judgment denying Smith’s motion for reduction of sentence is AFFIRMED.