Dist. Ct. did not err in denying on jurisdictional grounds defendant’s second motion for reduction of sentence under section 3582(c) based on recent amendment to sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. Dist. Ct. established at original sentencing hearing that defendant’s relevant conduct involved at least 31 kilograms of crack cocaine, and Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider instant motion for reduction since defendant’s original sentencing range was not lowered by recent amendments to sentencing guidelines. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct.’s adoption of original presentence report’s determination of 31 kilograms of relevant conduct was clearly erroneous.