Harry Vernon Moore, III, federal prisoner # 36488-180, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based upon Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By seeking leave to proceed IFP, Moore is challenging the district court’s certification, that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. §• 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Moore contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Because his original sentence was imposed at the low end of the guidelines range, he maintains, the district court should have resentenced him at the bottom of the amended guidelines range. Moore contends that the district court erred in considering the severity of his criminal history and the quantity of drugs involved in this offense. He asserts that the facts of this case are unexceptional, that the Sentencing Commission weighed the statutory sentencing factors, and that the district court abused its discretion in substituting its own judgment by re-weighing those factors.'

The district court recognized that Moore was eligible for a sentence reduction, and it found correctly that Moore’s original *240 sentence was within his new guidelines range. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court denied Moore’s motion as a matter of discretion, referring specifically to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Moore has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a sentence reduction. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

Moore’s appeal does not present a non-frivolous issue. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.