Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermal Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a reduction in Daniels’ sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing review standard); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full re-sentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that district court is presumed, absent contrary indication, to have considered relevant factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Daniels, No. 3:05-cr-00103-RJC-DCK-2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED