United States v. Cory Phillips, No. 20-1188 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case -Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in attributing methamphetamine seized from a co-conspirator to defendant for purposes of calculating his base offense level.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1188 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Cory Jeremiah Phillips lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: July 31, 2020 Filed: August 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cory Phillips appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense. His counsel had moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues the district court erred in attributing methamphetamine seized from one of Phillips’s co-conspirators to Phillips for purposes of determining his base offense level. After careful review, we conclude that the district court’s drug-quantity determination was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Titlbach, 300 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (reviewing district court’s drug-quantity calculations for clear error; stating this court will disturb district court’s drug-quantity calculation only if entire record definitely and firmly convinces court that mistake has been made); United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 720 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing when, in drug conspiracy cases, the district court may attribute to the defendant drug quantities from transactions in which the defendant was not directly involved). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
