United States v. Henderson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-30440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-30440 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-30440 FILED Summary Calendar March 17, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eugene Henderson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:24-CR-115-6 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Eugene Henderson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment. He contends that the district court erred in denying him a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable due _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30440 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2026

No. 25-30440

to his mitigating circumstances, evidence that incarceration does not deter future crimes or recidivism in drug cases, and historical sentencing disparities in drug cases. The record reflects, among other things, that Henderson played a significant role in the specific transactions for which he was held responsible, that he requested and received methamphetamine for redistribution, and that he occasionally provided methamphetamine to his coconspirator. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in denying a reduction under § 3B1.2. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). Further, Henderson fails to show that his presumptively reasonable within- guidelines sentence fails to account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, his substantive reasonableness challenge also lacks merit. AFFIRMED.