Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherard W. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-21
Citations: 481 F. App'x 344
Docket Number: No. 12-30003
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherard W. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherard W. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30003.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
Aine Ahmed, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sherard W. Henderson appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Henderson contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reduce his sentence. He asserts that, by denying the motion on the basis of his criminal history, the district court improperly double counted his criminal history. Contrary to Henderson's contention, the district court properly denied his motion based on public safety considerations. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.