has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir.2013). Whether to grant such a reduction is within the district court’s discretion, so long as it considers the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent applicable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195. We review a district court’s decision whether to grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010). In so doing, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but instead consider whether the court’s exercise of discretion was arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Our review of the record demonstrates that
recognizing that the district court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on motions for relief from judgment holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions recognizing the district courts broad discretion to utilize civil procedures in a manner that is useful and equitable to the parties holding that the idea grants district courts broad discretion to craft appropriate relief holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad