US v. Samuel Phillip

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:93-cr-00131-HCM-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999694445]. Mailed to: Samuel Phillips. [15-6956]

Appeal: 15-6956

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6956

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a Culture, a/k/a
David,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-5)

Submitted:

October 8, 2015

Decided:

November 6, 2015

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Clive Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.
Kevin Michael
Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6956

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Samuel Clive Phillips appeals the district court’s order
denying

his

sentence

18

U.S.C.

reduction

Guidelines.

§ 3582(c)(2)

under

(2012)

Amendment

782

motion
to

the

seeking

a

Sentencing

Because we conclude that the district court erred

in finding that Phillips’s Guidelines range was unchanged by the
Amendment,

we

vacate

and

remand

to

the

district

court

for

further proceedings.
“We review a district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2)
for abuse of discretion, and its ruling as to the scope of its
legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.”
Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).
accord

substantial

deference

to

a

interpretation of its own judgment.”

United States v.

“We are obliged to
district

Id. at 305.

court’s
A district

court abuses its discretion, however, if it fails or refuses to
exercise

discretion,

factual premises.

or

if

it

relies

on

erroneous

legal

or

James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.

1993).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of
imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered . . .
if

such

statements

a

reduction
issued

§ 3582(c)(2);

see

by

is
the

also

consistent
Sentencing
U.S.

with

Commission.”

Sentencing
2

applicable
18

Guidelines

policy
U.S.C.
Manual

Appeal: 15-6956

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/06/2015

§ 1B1.10, p.s. (2014).

Pg: 3 of 4

“Eligibility for consideration under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment . . . that
lowers the applicable [G]uideline range.”
n.1(A).

“In

determining

reduction

in

the

whether,

defendant’s

USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.

and

term

to

of

what

extent,

imprisonment

a

under

[§ 3582(c)(2)] and this policy statement is warranted, the court
shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable

to

the

defendant

if

the

amendment(s)

to

the

guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at the
time the defendant was sentenced.”

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.

(2014).
At sentencing, Phillips was attributed with 24.06 kilograms
of cocaine base.

Under Amendment 782, Phillips’s base offense

level is 36, rather than the base offense level of 42 with which
he

was

attributed

at

sentencing.

USSG

§ 2D1.1(c)(2)

(2014)

(providing for offense level 36 for offense involving at least
8.4 kilograms, but less than 25.2 kilograms of cocaine base).
After adding the five levels to his offense level that were
added to his original offense level, and in conjunction with his
category I criminal history, Phillips’s Guidelines range is now
324-405

months.

Accordingly,

USSG

Phillips’s

Ch.

5,

Guidelines

reduced under Amendment 782.

3

pt.

A

range

(sentencing
of

life

table).
has

been

Appeal: 15-6956

Doc: 7

We

Filed: 11/06/2015

thus

determining

conclude
that

Guidelines range.

that

Pg: 4 of 4

the

Amendment

782

district
did

not

court
lower

erred

in

Phillips’s

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s

order and remand so that the court may consider whether to grant
any

sentence

dispense

reduction

with

contentions

are

oral

for

which

argument

adequately

Phillips

because

presented

in

is

the
the

eligible.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4