Travis James Eaton appeals after the district court 1 denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In declining to reduce Mr. Eaton’s sentence, the district court found that a reduction was not warranted in light of his lengthy criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism. We conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as the district court’s finding that a reduction was not warranted was not an abuse of discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce sentence by applying amended Guidelines range as if it were in effect at time of original sentencing, and leaving all other Guidelines determinations intact as previously determined); United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes •modification, and abuse-of-discretion review of decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification); United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1103-05 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) due to defendant’s criminal history). The judg *702 ment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.