Timothy D. Jackson, federal prisoner # 18342-280, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction based on retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). Id. If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. Id. at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683. We review the decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).

The district court implicitly found Jackson eligible for the reduction but determined that a reduction was unwarranted due to his inadequately represented criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Jackson contends that this was an abuse of discretion, urging that the court gave excessive weight to factors that did not justify denial and inadequate weight to factors supporting a reduction, including his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.

The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson’s motion as a whole, gave specific reasons for its denial, and referenced the relevant § 3553(a) fac *322 tors. Jackson thus cannot show an abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.