-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RODNEY PHILLIPS, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 14-cr-20344 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL J. KOMIVES

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

REDUCTION/MODIFICATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE TERMS & SENTENCE FOR 

GOOD CAUSE [20] 

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 22, 2014, the Defendant agreed to plead guilty on one Count 

of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See Dkt. No. 15. On 

January 30, 2015, Defendant Rodney Phillips (“Defendant”) was sentenced to 

twenty–four (24) months imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised 

release, subject to several terms and conditions. See Dkt. No. 19 at 2–8 (Pg. ID No. 

69–75). Defendant, proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion for 

Reduction/Modification of Supervised Release Terms & Sentence for Good Cause. 

See Dkt. No. 20. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. 

 

2:14-cr-20344-GAD-PJK Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 81
-2- 

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

The Defendant brings this motion on three grounds. First, the Defendant 

requests that this Court modify the terms of his supervised release. Next, the 

Defendant requests credit for time served in pre-trial detention. Finally, the 

Defendant challenges the application of the sentencing guidelines to his case. 

A. Modification of Supervised Release 

 The district court has broad discretion to impose appropriate conditions of 

supervised release. U.S. v. Minor, 440 F. App’x 479, 481–82 (6th Cir. 2011).

Modifications to conditions of supervised release are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 

3583(e). 

The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 

3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and 

(a)(7) . . . modify . . . the conditions of supervised release, at any time 

prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release, 

pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

relating to the modification of probation and the provisions applicable 

to the initial setting of the terms and conditions of post-release 

supervision. 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). Section 3553(a)(1) addresses the “nature and the 

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). Section 3553(a)(2)(B) addresses the need for the sentence 

imposed “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” § 3553(a)(2)(B). 

Section 3553(a)(2)(C) addresses the need for the sentence imposed “to protect the 

2:14-cr-20344-GAD-PJK Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 82
-3- 

public from further crimes of the defendant.” § 3553(a)(2)(C). Section 

3553(a)(2)(D) addresses the need for the sentence “to provide the defendant with 

needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 

treatment in the most effective manner.” § 3553(a)(2)(D). The court may also 

consider the kinds of sentence, the sentencing range established for the applicable 

category of offense, the applicable guidelines, policy statements, or amendments 

issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. See §§ 

3553(a)(4–7); United States v. Minor, 440 F. App’x 479, 482 (6th Cir. 2011). 

 The Court took these factors into consideration at sentencing. See Dkt. No. 

18 at 4–5 (Pg. ID No. 65–66). The Defendant has provided no reasons under the 

above listed criteria for why his supervised release should be modified. Defendant 

merely argues that the terms of his supervised release are “general and vague.” 

Dkt. No. 20 at 1 (Pg. ID No. 76). The Court finds this argument insufficient to 

modify the terms of supervised release. Accordingly, this request will be denied. 

B. Uncredited Pre-Trial Time

Defendant next moves to have the Court credit “any Pretrial Detention under 

Enlarged Conditions” toward his sentence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

Dkt. No. 20 at 3 (Pg. ID No. 78). However, Section 3582 provides that the Court 

may only reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment “upon motion of the 

2:14-cr-20344-GAD-PJK Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 83
-4- 

director of the Bureau of Prisons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Bureau of 

Prisons has not moved for the reduction of the Defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, 

this request is denied. 

C. Guideline Ambiguity 

Finally, Defendant challenges his sentencing guidelines as unconstitutionally 

vague. Dkt. No. 20 at 3–4 (Pg. ID No. 78–79). He first challenges any “2 point gun 

enhancement added” to his sentence that was not specifically meant to apply to his 

conduct. Id. He also challenges any “Sentencing Guideline based enhancement or 

calculation factor of any kind” for “ambiguous priors.” Id. at 2 (Pg. ID No. 77). 

Defendant’s challenge is without merit. Within the Defendant’s plea 

agreement, Defendant not only agreed to his sentencing guideline range of 27–33 

months, but he also agreed to waive any appeal of his sentence. See Plea 

Agreement. Additionally, the Defendant was only sentenced to 24 months 

imprisonment. Not only is this three months below what the sentencing guidelines 

recommend for the Defendant in this case, but it is also what the minimum 

recommended sentence would have been had the enhancement not been applied. 

See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table). Therefore, the Defendant is 

requesting relief from harm that never manifested in his case. Accordingly the 

argument fails. 

2:14-cr-20344-GAD-PJK Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 84
-5- 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion [20] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 13, 2016 s/Gershwin A. Drain 

 GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon 

counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to 

their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing on July 13, 2016. 

 

s/Shawna Burns on behalf of Tanya R. Bankston 

 TANYA R.BANKSTON 

 Case Manager & Deputy Clerk 

2:14-cr-20344-GAD-PJK Doc # 22 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 85