UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LARRY JERMAINE BATTLE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 21-3128 (D.C. No. 6:00-CR -10059-EFM-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendant Larry Battle, Jr., appeals the di strict court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because Battle challenges only one of the two grounds for the district court’s ruling, we affirm

. In 2000, a jury convicted Battle of H obbs Act robbery and of using a firearm during the robbery to commit murder. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) , 924(c), and 924(j). The district court imposed consecutive sentences of 24 0 months for the Hobbs Act violation and life imprisonment for Battle’s murderous firear m use. We affirmed the district court’s judgment on direct appeal. United States v. Battle , 289 F.3d 661, 663

* 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. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 17, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-3128 Document: 010110646606 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 12 (10th Cir. 2002), overruled in part by United States v. Melgar-Cabrera , 892 F.3d 1053, 1057–60 (10th Cir. 2018). 1 In 2021, Battle filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), arguing he was entitled to a shorte ned sentence based on (1) the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) his rehabilitative efforts; and (3) his “extremely long sentence and unjust disparity in punishment.” The dist rict court denied Battle’s motion, and Battle appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s ruling. A defendant cannot receive a senten ce reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) unless three prerequisites are satisfied: (1) there are “extraor dinary and compelling reasons” for a reduction; (2) a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commi ssion; and (3) based on its discretionary consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court conclude s that “the reduction authorized by steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” United States v. Hald , 8 F.4th 932, 93 8 (10th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). The court does not need to address these three prerequisites in any particular order, and it must deny a sentence reduc tion if any of the three prerequisites is lacking. See id. at 942–43.

1 Following his conviction, Battle unsu ccessfully sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Battle , 133 F. App’x 546 (10th Cir. 2005). In October 2019, we denied Ba ttle’s request for authori zation to file a second or successive § 2255 petition based on our recent decision in Melgar-Cabrera , holding that Battle was not en titled to such authorization under § 2255(h). Appellate Case: 21-3128 Document: 010110646606 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 23 Here, the district court concluded that Bat tle had not satisfied either the first or third prerequisite for relief . The district court first concluded that the pandemic, Battle’s rehabilitative efforts, and his lif e sentence did not constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying a sentence reduction. The court then held that “[e]ven if [Battle] could establish an extraordinary and compelling reason, the § 3553(a) factors would not support a reduction in senten ce” due to the seriousness of his offense. In explaining this holding, the court recounted the details of Battle’s offense and described why the § 3553 factor s would still warrant a sentence of life imprisonment even if the court reweighed these factors anew. On appeal, Battle argues that the district court erred in c oncluding he had not established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction. He does not, however, challenge the district co urt’s conclusion that he would not be entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3553(a) even if he could make this showing. Battle simply ignores this al ternative holding altogether. “When a district court dismisses a clai m on two or more independent grounds, the appellant must challenge each of those grounds.” Lebahn v. Nat’l Farmers Union Unif. Pension Plan , 828 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2016). Because Battle does not challenge the district cour t’s holding that his motion fa ils to satisfy the third prerequisite for a sentence reduction, he has “given us no basis to disturb the district court’s ruling” on that issue. Id. Thus, even if we were to agree that he satisfied the first prerequisite, “the district court’s order would still sta nd on the alternative ground that [he] fails to adequately challenge in his opening brief.” Eaton v. Appellate Case: 21-3128 Document: 010110646606 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 34 Pacheco , 931 F.3d 1009, 1030 n. 18 (10th Cir. 2019) (quota tion omitted). “In these circumstances, we must affirm.” Lebahn , 828 F.3d at 1188. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Battle’s motion for a sentence reduction.

Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 21-3128 Document: 010110646606 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 4