
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel MACIAS, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40252 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 10/19/2016
    Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Victor Manuel Macias, Pro Se.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Victor Manuel Macias appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 101-month sentence for possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. His motion was based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Macias argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, contending that the district court’s order does not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review because it does not contain reasons for the denial- of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Macias also asserts that the court failed to consider his conduct prior to the offense and his postsen-tencing rehabilitative efforts and failed to notify him of a new presentence report.

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). Contrary to Macias’s ássertion, a district court is not required to provide reasons for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. at 674. Neither is a district court required to consider the defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct and is under no obligation to grant a sentence reduction despite the defendant’s eligibility for one. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(B)(iii)); Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 & n.10. No new presentence report was prepared, so Macias’s argument on that issue fails.

The district court’s order reflects that it considered Macias’s motion, the policy statement under § 1B1.10, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Macias has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was an abuse of discretion by the district court. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     