With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting 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 larger reduction in Johnson’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.2013) (standard of review); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B) (2015) (addressing appropriate factors to consider in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion); 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 resentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

A: holding that only relevant factors must be considered
B: recognizing that district court is presumed absent contrary indication to have considered relevant factors when ruling on  3582c2 motion
C: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
D: holding that when trial court has considered all relevant factors in its forum non conveniens analysis the courts ruling deserves substantial deference and appellate court should not conduct de novo review by reweighing each of the factors quotation marks omitted
B.