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 district 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 Hobbs 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 240 months for the Hobbs Act 

violation and life imprisonment for Battle’s murderous firearm 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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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. 

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: 1
2 

(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 shortened sentence based on (1) the 

COVID-19 pandemic; (2) his rehabilitative efforts; and (3) his “extremely long 

sentence and unjust disparity in punishment.” The district 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 sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) 

unless three prerequisites are satisfied: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” for a reduction; (2) a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and (3) based on its discretionary 

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court concludes 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, 938 (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 reduction if any of the three 

prerequisites is lacking. See id. at 942–43. 

1

 Following his conviction, Battle unsuccessfully 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 Battle’s request for authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2255 petition based on our recent decision in Melgar-Cabrera, holding 

that Battle was not entitled to such authorization under § 2255(h). 

Appellate Case: 21-3128 Document: 010110646606 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 2
3 

Here, the district court concluded that Battle 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 life 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 sentence” 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 factors 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 concluding he had not 

established “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction. He 

does not, however, challenge the district court’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 alternative holding altogether. 

“When a district court dismisses a claim 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 court’s holding that his motion fails 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 stand 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: 3
4 

Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009, 1030 n.18 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation 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