PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Robert Taylor, federal prisoner # 34588-177, convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on *2 Case: 15-11236 Document: 00513752843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2016

No. 15-11236

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Taylor claims that a sentence reduction was warranted be- cause his prison-rule violations for having excess stamps and not showing up for an assignment were non-violent; he was punished adequately for breaking those rules; he is no longer in a gang; he is older and wiser; he is a peaceful person; and his post-sentencing conduct was positive.

We review for abuse of discretion the decision whether to reduce a sen- tence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is to con- duct a two-step analysis. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). It first must decide whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id . at 827. If so, the court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” a reduction is warranted under the facts of the case. Id .

The district court implicitly found that Taylor was eligible for the reduc- tion. The court then exercised its discretion to deny the motion based on Tay- lor’s offense conduct, relevant conduct, post-sentencing conduct, and gang affil- iation. Taylor’s contention that the court did not properly balance the sentenc- ing factors is insufficient to show abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Evans , 587 F.3d at 672.

Taylor’s motion for reconsideration was untimely, unauthorized, and without a jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141–42 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Miramontez , 995 F.2d 56, 58 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(1)(A). We affirm the denial of that motion on this alternative basis. See Early , 27 F.3d at 141–42.

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.