PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Jorge Alejandro Ortiz-Valdes, federal prisoner # 86843-380, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 70- month sentence for possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. Ortiz-Valdes sought a modification of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

*2 Case: 16-50113 Document: 00513788636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016

No. 16-50113

Ortiz-Valdes argues that the district court erred in refusing to reduce his sentence because it did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave excessive weight to his criminal history and relevant conduct, and did not adequately consider the other § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court is not required to provide reasons for its denial of a § 3582 motion or to explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and is “under no obligation to reduce” a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Evans , 587 F.3d at 673-74 (quote at 673). In the instant case, the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and contemplated Ortiz-Valdes’s mitigating arguments, including his positive post-sentence rehabilitation efforts; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011); Evans , 587 F.3d at 672-73; United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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.