[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12354

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60007-FAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY PHILLIPS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 10, 2020)

Case: 19-12354 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Phillips appeals the partial denial of his motion to reduce his 

sentence based on the First Step Act of 2018. Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 

Stat. 5194, 5222. The district court granted Phillips’s motion in part and reduced 

his sentence from 262 months of imprisonment to 210 months of imprisonment. 

Phillips argues that the district court should have sentenced him to a term at the 

low end of his adjusted guideline range, which would correspond to his original 

sentence, and that the district court failed to explain the reason for its adjusted 

sentence. We affirm.

The First Step Act gives a district court discretion to reduce the sentence of a 

defendant convicted on or before August 3, 2010, of a drug offense for which the 

“statutory penalties . . . were modified by section 2 . . . of the Fair Sentencing Act 

of 2010.” 132 Stat. 5194, § 404(a), (b). The First Step Act makes section 2 of the 

Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, which increases the quantity of crack cocaine 

necessary to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for distributing drugs, 21 

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), from 50 grams to 280 grams, Pub. L. 111-220, § 8, 124 

Stat. 2372 (2010). 132 Stat. 5194, § 404(b). If the defendant is eligible for relief 

under section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act and is not otherwise excluded from 

relief for reasons specified in the First Step Act, the district court may, but is not 

Case: 19-12354 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

required to, “impose a reduced sentence as if . . . the Fair Sentencing Act . . . w[as] 

in effect at the time the [drug] offense was committed.” Id. § 404(b), (c). When a 

district court exercises its discretionary authority, as it does to adjust a sentence 

under the First Step Act, we must affirm unless it “commits a clear error of 

judgment.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Phillips a further 

reduction of his sentence. Phillips admitted when he pleaded guilty to possessing 

with intent to distribute cocaine that his offense involved 50 grams or more of the 

illegal drug. The First Step Act reduced Phillips’s base offense level from 37 to 34, 

which with a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulted in an 

adjusted offense level of 31 and an advisory guideline range of 188 to 235 months 

of imprisonment. The district court considered the parties’ filings and adopted the 

position of the government that a sentence of 210 months of imprisonment was 

required to address Phillips’s four prior drug convictions, his illegal reentry to the 

United States to resume drug activities that resulted in the sentence under review, 

and his post-sentencing conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The decision to impose 

a sentence in the middle of Phillips’s recommended sentencing range was 

consistent with the statement of the district court at Phillips’s original sentencing 

hearing that his offense and criminal history warranted a “substantial sentence.”

Case: 19-12354 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

 The explanation provided by the district court, “though brief, was legally 

sufficient.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court 

stated that it considered Phillips’s motion and the response of the government and 

decided to reduce Phillips’s sentence to 210 months. The district court was not 

required to provide a “length[ier] explanation.” Id.

We AFFIRM Phillips’s adjusted sentence.

Case: 19-12354 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 4 of 4