USA v. Delmar Phillips, No. 06-4162 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and their search of his person was a lawful search incident to arrest.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-4162 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Delmar Phillips, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 21, 2007 Filed: November 29, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Delmar Phillips conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum, and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm, and we grant counsel s withdrawal motion. 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. First, law enforcement officers knowledge from a records check that Phillips was driving with a suspended license gave them probable cause to arrest him. The arrest, in turn, gave the officers authority to conduct a search of Phillips s person incident to the arrest. Thus, the district court correctly denied his motion to suppress the drugs seized from his person. See United States v. Jones, 479 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2007). Second, the district court lacked authority to sentence Phillips below the 10-year statutory minimum. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Finally, having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel s motion 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.
