Kelvin M. Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence. He argues that the district court erred: in denying the motion based solely upon his criminal history and without otherwise explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); in failing to acknowledge the disproportionate punishments for crack and powder cocaine; and in not conducting a live evidentiary hearing.

We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion 1 and begin by noting that the court “was under no obligation to reduce [the prisoner’s] sentence at all.” 2 The court need not mention the § 3553(a) factors — or any of its reasons — when ruling upon a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but the record makes clear that the court did consider both the § 3553(a) factors and the crack sentencing disparities. 3 Indeed, the district court weighed Jones’s extensive criminal history — and, implicitly, his continuing danger — when determining that Jones warranted no reduction. 4 Although this court has mused whether in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding the prisoner should get “an evi-dentiary hearing once he contests] the factual basis of some of the Government’s contentions,” 5 Jones has not articulated a factual dispute; instead, he seeks a hearing to challenge the district court’s conclusions. To this he is not entitled. 6

AFFIRMED.