Federal inmate Leroy Eason appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion to compel the government to move for a post-conviction sentence reduction. After careful review, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eason’s motion, because he did not meet his burden of showing that the government’s refusal to move for a sentence reduction was premised on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. See United States v. Marks, 244 F.3d 971, 975 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.