
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Archie FOXWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-13326
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 12, 2008.
    
      Archie Foxworth, Jesup, GA, pro se.
    Frederick Kramer, II, Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before BIRCH, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Archie Foxworth, a federal prisoner convicted of distributing approximately 33 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), appeals from the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence, based on Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines. On appeal, Fox-worth argues that he qualified for a two-level sentence reduction, and that the district court did not properly analyze the pertinent factors, including those listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), before denying his motion. After careful review, we affirm.

We review a district court’s decision denying a sentence reduction, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir.2005). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court has the discretion to reduce the term of a defendant’s previously imposed sentence when the term of imprisonment was based on a guideline range “that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendment 706, effective retroactively as of March 3, 2008, provides for a two-level reduction in the base offense level for certain crack cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amend. 713, U.S.S.G.App. C, Amend. 706. Even so, a court may only reduce a defendant’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); and see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

The Sentencing Commission has issued a policy statement instructing district courts that before they reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2), they must consider the factors listed in § 3553(a), and the nature and seriousness of danger to the community posed by the reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, (n. 1(B)). In analyzing these factors, district courts may also consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant. Id.

The factors outlined in § 3553(a) include, inter alia: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment; (4) the need for adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (5) the protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Accordingly, in addressing a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a two-part analysis: (1) by recalculating the sentence based on the amendment, “leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions unaffected;” and (2) by exercising its discretion, based on the factors described above, to impose a new sentence or to retain the original. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(l); and see United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir.1998). “Although the district court must undertake the two-step analysis outlined above, the district court is not required to reduce the defendant’s sentence.” Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760.

In addition, a “district court need only ‘acknowledge’ that it ‘considered the § 3553(a) factors[,]’ and need not discuss each of these factors in either the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing order[.]” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 128 S.Ct. 671, 169 L.Ed.2d 526 (2007) (internal citation omitted). We have upheld the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on a brief statement by the district court that it was concerned with the defendant’s “‘demonstrated violence’” and had reweighed “‘all of the other considerations that went into the establishment of [the] defendant’s sentence.’ ” Vautier, 144 F.3d at 759.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly undertook the required two-step analysis before denying Foxworth’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. First, the district court correctly recalculated the amended guideline range. Second, it considered the § 3553(a) factors, and determined that Foxworth remained a danger to the community in light of his four post-sentencing disciplinary infractions. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Foxworth’s motion to reduce his sentence is not an abuse of discretion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.  