Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02403/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02403-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlus L. Phillips
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Carlus L. Phillips, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2003, Carlus Phillips pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

five grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(B). The district court2

 sentenced him to 252 months of

imprisonment, a sentence which fell near the top of the applicable Guidelines range

of 210-262 months. In 2009, Phillips moved for a reduction in his sentence under 18

Appellate Case: 09-2403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625403
3

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

U.S.C. § 3582(c) based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced the base

offense level for crack cocaine offenses by two levels. The amended Guidelines range

for Phillips's crack cocaine offense thus became 168-210 months. The district court3

resentenced Phillips to 202 months, selecting a sentence that fell near the top of the

amended Guidelines range, proportionally consistent with the original sentence of 252

months.

Phillips appeals his amended sentence contending the district court erred by

failing to elaborate on its reasons for selecting a sentence near the high end of the

amended Guidelines range, and by failing to consider or explain its application of the

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The district court's selection of a sentence within the amended Guidelines range

that was proportionally consistent with the original sentence, coupled with the

discussion of the § 3553(a) factors conducted in the original sentencing proceeding,

sufficiently explain the amended sentence. See United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722,

725 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming a sentence amended pursuant to § 3582(c) which was

near the high end of the amended Guidelines range, where the original sentence was

also at the high end of the Guidelines range, and where the district court at the original

sentencing hearing provided an adequate explanation of the § 3553(a) factors and gave

the reasons for selecting its sentence).

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625403