United States v. Jack Phillips, No. 20-1310 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's First Step Act motion to reduce his prison sentence; a defendant is not entitled to a plenary resentencing under the Act and may not sue a First Step Act motion to raise challenges to their original sentence. [ November 02, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1310 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jack Lee Phillips lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: October 27, 2020 Filed: November 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jack Phillips appeals the district court’s1 order denying in part his motions for relief under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 5194. The district court determined that Phillips was eligible for relief under the FSA and reduced his term of supervised release, but declined to reduce his prison sentence. Phillips argues the district court abused its discretion in failing to reduce his prison sentence. The record reflects the district court carefully considered a number of factors in reaching its decision, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). Phillips also argues the district court made various errors in the original sentencing proceedings. We conclude these arguments lack merit, as prisoners seeking sentence reductions under the FSA are not entitled to a plenary re-sentencing hearing and may not raise challenges to their original sentences. See United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (contrasting plenary imposition of original sentence with discretionary imposition of reduced sentence under the FSA); see also United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting sentencing modifications under the FSA are not concerned with “errors” during the original sentencing). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
