district court did not fully consider his circumstances prior to choosing a sentence. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court “may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section § 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” In United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir.2000), we held that there exists a presumption, absent a contrary indication in the record, that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Here, the record provides no support for Hairston’s assertions that the district court failed to properly consider his motion; accordingly, we presume that the court’s consideration of the appropriate factors was sufficient. See also United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177
holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment holding that purpose of rule 296 is to give party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues adjudicated after trial on merits to court holding failure to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law did not preclude meaningful appellate review holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case