United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713

Three defendants Henderson, McClune, and Kirkendoll challenged district courts’ denial of their § 3582(c)(2) motions for sentence reductions after retroactive crack-cocaine amendments.
Amendments 706 and 713 lowered base offense levels for crack offenses and made the changes retroactive in 2008.
Original sentences: Henderson received a 100-month term under a § 5K1.1/3553(a) departure; McClune was sentenced to 141 months based on a substantial assistance departure; Kirkendoll received concurrent 144/120 months after a Rule 35 correction and later resentencing.
After recalculation, amended guidelines ranges were 151–188 months for Henderson, 151–188 for McClune, and 135–168 months for Kirkendoll, with no mandatory minimums.
The district courts denied further reductions, stating the defendants had previously received below-Guidelines sentences and that § 3553(a) factors were already satisfied.
We reverse the district courts’ denials and remand for reevaluation of the § 3582(c)(2) motions in light of the proper two-step analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly reevaluated §3553(a) factors.	Henderson, McClune, Kirkendoll argue courts failed to reconsider §3553(a) anew.	Defendants contend courts relied only on original sentencing determinations.	Yes; remand required to reconsider §3553(a) factors anew.
Whether a comparable reduction is authorized when original sentence was below the original guidelines range.	Defendants seek reductions consistent with amended ranges under §1B1.10(b)(2)(B).	District courts treated prior below-range sentence as barrier to further reduction.	Comparable reductions permissible; district courts must reassess factors.
Whether the two-step Dillon framework governs §3582(c)(2) determinations in these cases.	Defendants rely on applying §1B1.10 and §3553(a) to justify reductions.	Courts must follow Dillon to assess eligibility and whether a reduction is warranted.	Application of Dillon step-one and step-two required; remand for proper analysis.

Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (two-step inquiry for §3582(c)(2) post-DSCALE reductions; reconsideration of §3553(a))
Cooley, 590 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009) (illustrates proper understanding of authority to grant a comparable reduction)
Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (U.S. 2010) (two-step framework for §3582(c)(2) determinations; step-two requires considering §3553(a))
Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (recognizes eligibility assessment under §3582(c)(2) after amendments)
Smith, 595 F.3d 1323 (5th Cir. 2010) (no mandatory reduction; discretion to grant or deny §3582(c)(2) relief)
Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (reiterates requirement to reconsider §3553(a) factors; implicit consideration is sufficient)