Defendant-Appellant Michael Dillon, federal prisoner # 28533-034, was convicted of two drug-related offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 300 months of imprisonment to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. He later filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which the district court denied. After this court remanded for clarification of the record, see United States v. Dillon, 676 Fed.Appx. 377 (5th Cir. 2017), the district court again denied Dillon’s motion. He now appeals for a second time; we affirm.

We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district court implicitly determined that Dillon was eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). The record also reflects that the district court considered the materials that had been presented to it, including Dillon’s arguments that a sentence reduction was warranted in light of the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his positive record of post-conviction conduct. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718.

The district court correctly conducted the applicable two-step inquiiy. Dillon’s disagreement with the court’s denial of his motion fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See id. at 717-18.

AFFIRMED.