UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LAVELLE HENDERSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 21-3138 

(D.C. No. 5:01-CR-40020-HLT-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________ 

Defendant-Appellant Lavelle Henderson appeals from the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the First Step Act (FSA). Our 

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 28, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-3138 Document: 010110638240 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 1
2 

Background 

In 2002, Mr. Henderson was convicted of continuing criminal enterprise 

(CCE), 21 U.S.C. § 848, money laundering, and conspiracies to possess with intent to 

distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride. Ultimately, the district court 

vacated the conspiracy counts as lesser included offenses of CCE and sentenced him 

concurrently to life on the CCE count and 10 years on the money laundering count. 

In 2016, President Obama commuted Mr. Henderson’s sentence to 360 months’ 

imprisonment. 

In deciding Mr. Henderson’s motion, the court first found Mr. Henderson was 

eligible for relief under the FSA. As neither party challenges this determination, we 

do not review this issue. The court then determined that the guideline range under 

the FSA would be 360 months to life. After noting that Mr. Henderson’s commuted 

sentence was at “the low end of the applicable guideline range,” the court considered 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying Mr. Henderson’s motion. Order at 6, 

United States v. Henderson, No. 01-cr-40020 (D. Kan. June 25, 2021), ECF No. 217. 

Discussion 

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a reduced sentence for an 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145, 1155 (10th Cir. 2020). 

“A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect conclusion of law 

or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 

(10th Cir. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 21-3138 Document: 010110638240 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 2
3 

Mr. Henderson argues that the district court abused its discretion because it 

misapprehended its authority to vary below the advisory guideline range, failed to 

revisit the drug quantity in his original sentencing, failed to give a clear reason for its 

denial and provide particularized findings, and did not consider sentencing disparities 

among similarly situated defendants, his rehabilitation, or his good conduct in prison. 

We are not persuaded. 

The district court plainly recognized its authority in these circumstances. It 

recognized that it could not rely upon the current guidelines and perform a plenary 

resentencing but that it could correct errors. United States v. Brown, 974 F.3d 1137, 

1139–40 (10th Cir. 2020). It determined that his commuted sentence was at the low 

end of the applicable guideline range, regardless “of whether the amount of cocaine 

base attributed to him [was] 50 grams or 1.5 kilograms.” Order at 6, Henderson, No. 

1-cr-40020. Additionally, the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) 

factors. See Mannie, 971 F.3d at 1158. Among other things, the court noted Mr. 

Henderson’s role as “a leader in a multi-year enterprise that distributed cocaine 

base,” his chaotic upbringing, his criminal history, his family, and his “good behavior 

while incarcerated.” Order at 6, Henderson, No. 1-cr-40020. It concluded that a 

sentence reduction was inappropriate. There was no abuse of discretion. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 21-3138 Document: 010110638240 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 3