Melvin Lutcher, federal prisoner # 21092-034, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence. He contends that the denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion because the district court failed to take into consideration the crack/powder disparity and gave too much weight to his prison disciplinary offenses.

We review the decision whether to grant or deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse *501 of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). A district court is required to consider the sentencing factors set out at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when contemplating a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but it need not explain that it has done so. Id. at 673-74. A district court need not provide any reasons at all for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Id. at 674. We can assume that a district court has considered any § 3553(a) arguments presented in favor of a sentence reduction. Id. at 673.

The district court implicitly considered Lutcher’s rehabilitative efforts in prison, see id., and explicitly considered Lutcher’s lack of rehabilitative efforts generally. Lutcher, moreover, has a history as a habitual criminal. The denial of Lutcher’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 672.

AFFIRMED.