Ernest Allen, federal prisoner # 22651-034, appeals the district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Allen argues that the district court’s decision to reduce his sentence by only 12 months was an abuse of discretion.

Reductions under § 3582(c)(2) are not mandatory and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237-38 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). In Allen’s case, the district court did not base its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See id. at 237; see United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(B)(i)-(iii)). Also, the district court’s failure to provide case-specific reasons for its decision does not constitute reversible error. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-74 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.