Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Spencer Peters appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We need not address whether the district court erred in finding Peters ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court alternatively held that, even if Peters were eligible, it would decline to grant such a reduction in view of “the nature and extent of the offense conduct and the safety risk that the defendant poses to the public.” Peters does not challenge this aspect of the district court’s decision on appeal, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within the court’s discretion.”) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.