Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Eon David appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. David contends the district court erred by considering his post-sentencing actions, rather than considering the facts as they existed at the time of his original sentencing. In determining whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence, the district court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and the impact on public safety if the sentence is reduced. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 1B1.10 cmt. n. l(B)(i), (ii) (2008). The court also may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n. l(B)(iii). Accordingly, the district court’s consideration of David’s post-sentencing conduct and the impact on public safety of reducing David’s sentence was entirely proper.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief. United States v. David, No. 2:95-cr-00206-JAB-3 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2009). In light of this disposition, we deny as moot David’s motion to expedite the disposition of his appeal. -We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED