Hector De Hoyos appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as his related motion for reconsideration, in which he sought a re[*774] duction of his 120-month sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. De Hoyos argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which effectively lowered most drug-related base offense levels. De Hoyos contends that the district court gave excessive weight to his criminal history and failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and De Hoyos’s post-sentencing conduct.

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 record establishes that the district court considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, as well as De Hoyos’s post-sentencing conduct, in evaluating whether a sentence reduction was warranted. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). De Hoyos has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.