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 pur suant to the First Step Act (FSA). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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: 12 Background In 2002, Mr. Henderson was convicted of continuing crim inal enterprise (CCE), 21 U.S.C. § 848, money laundering, and conspiracies to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride. Ulti mately, the district court vacated the conspiracy counts as lesser in cluded offenses of CCE and sentenced him concurrently to life on the CCE count a nd 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 challe nges 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 applic able guideline range,” the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before de nying 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 redu ced sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ma nnie, 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.” Un ited States v. Battle , 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 21-3138 Document: 010110638240 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 23 Mr. Henderson argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion because it misapprehended its authority to vary belo w the advisory guidelin e range, failed to revisit the drug quantity in hi s original sentencing, failed to give a clear reason for its denial and provide particular ized findings, and did not cons ider sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, his reha bilitation, or his good conduct in prison. We are not persuaded. The district court plainly recognized its authority in these ci rcumstances. It recognized that it could not rely upon the current guidelin es 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, rega rdless “of whether th e 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 consid ered 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 fa mily, and his “good behavior while incarcerated.” Order at 6, Henderson, No. 1-cr-400 20. 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