UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert D. HARRELL, Defendant-Appellant, 623 F. App'x 278

PER CURIAM: Robert D. Harrell, federal prisoner #29484-034, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Harrell contends that he was eligible for a reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and that all of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(

a) sentencing factors clearly weighed in favor of a sentence reduction. The district court had before it Harrell’s arguments supporting a sentence reduction; the original and reduced guidelines range; Harrell’s inmate discipline record and education record; and the presentence report from Harrell’s original sentencing. Harrell’s original within-güidelines sentence of 168 months of imprisonment was above the amended guidelines range of 120 to 135 months of imprisonment. The district court denied the motion after considering the § 3553(

a) sentencing factors, the threat Harrell would pose to the community if granted a reduction, and his post-conviction conduct. While the district court did not discuss the § 3553(

a) factors, the arguments were presented to the district court, and “we can assume that it considered them.” United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Harrell argues that the district court’s decision was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence because the relevant sentencing factors weigh in favor of a reduction. However, the court’s findings are supported by the record. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam). Moreover, the district court was under no obligation to reduce Harrell’s sentence.

Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. Harrell has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir.1995). 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.