Gregory Charles Howard, federal prisoner # 04073-095, 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. Howard, through the Federal Public Defender, contends that the district court abused its discretion by not granting a reduction to the middle of the recalculated guidelines range. He also contends that the district court committed procedural error or abused its discretion by failing to give reasons for the sentence.

As Howard concedes, his arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). In Evans, we noted that, because the district court was under no obligation to reduce the defendant’s sentence at all, it was under no obligation to reduce the sentence even further within *431 the recalculated range. Id. at 673. In addition, the district court was not required to give reasons for granting the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion but not imposing a lower sentence within the recalculated guidelines range. Id. at 674. Accordingly, Howard’s contentions are foreclosed by Evans, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See id. at 672-74.