MEMORANDUM **
Yusuf Deshawn Reeves appeals from the district courts order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review § 3582(c)(1) decisions for abuse of discretion, United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Reeves contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing more weight on his potential for future dangerousness than his good conduct while in prison, failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although the court did not specifically mention Reevess conduct while incarcerated, the courts explanation reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Reevess arguments, and concluded that Reeves remained a danger to the community. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1342(g); see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). Considering the facts of Reevess offense, the courts finding that Reeves posed a safety risk to the public was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In reviewing for abuse of discretion ․ [w]e will reverse only if the district court relied on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact.”). In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reevess motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.