SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Raul Tatis, who is presently serving a 121-month prison term for trafficking heroin, appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels applicable to most drug crimes under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c), We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant’s prison sentence if it was based on a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered and the reduction is consistent with applicable Guidelines policy statements. See United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100, 103-04 (2d Cir. 2009). Tatis satisfies these requirements and is eligible for a reduction to the range of 87 to 108 months. Even if a defendant is eligible for a sentencing reduction, a district court has the discretion to deny such relief where it determines that no reduction is warranted. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d at 104. In making this determination, a district court must consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191, 194-95 (2d Cir. 2013), and “any public safety concerns a reduction in sentence would raise,” United States v. Wilson, 716 F.3d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court may also consider the defendant’s post-sentencing behavior. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(iii). Once a district court has made its decision, it must include “at least some minimal statement of reasons for [its] action” to allow meaningful appellate review. United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d at 197.

We review a district court’s denial of a sentence reduction to an otherwise eligible defendant for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2014). A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling rests “on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence,” or if the court “rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d at 104 (internal quotation marks omitted).

*608 We identify no such abuse here. The defendant’s prison disciplinary infractions cited by the district court, along with the court’s reconsideration of the § 3553(a) factors, provided a sufficient basis for denying the motion. See United States v. Wilson, 716 F.3d at 53; United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 2013).

We have considered Tatis’s other arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we, AFFIRM the order of the district court.