context: The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing adjustment, pursuant to SS 3582(c)(2), is not a resentencing proceeding.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: providing that SS 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission
citation_a.sentence: Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (providing that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 203 F.3d 778, 781-82
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that constitutional claims are "extraneous resentencing issues" that a court cannot address during a SS 3582(c
citation_b.sentence: A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has a limited scope and purpose, is “not constitutionally compelled,” and represents a “congressional act of lenity.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2691-92; see also United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781-82 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that constitutional claims are “extraneous resentencing issues” that a court cannot address during a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Rather, all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged, with the sole exception of the change in the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing.