United States v. Daniel Phillips
415 F. App'x 557
5th Cir.2011Background
- Phillips pled guilty to three counts of transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce and one count of unauthorized possession of 15+ access devices to defraud.
- PSR calculated base offense level 12, total level 14 after a 3-level acceptance of responsibility, in criminal history Category VI.
- Guidelines range was 37–46 months; PSR noted potential departure under § 4A1.3(a)(1) for under-represented criminal history and instructed incremental downward adjustment.
- At sentencing, Phillips received concurrent 46-month terms on the threats counts and a consecutive 46 months on the possession count, total 92 months, with 3 years of supervised release.
- District court stated it considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Guidelines but did not explain the 92-month sentence or the upward departure.
- The written Statement of Reasons adopted the PSR and claimed an upward departure under § 4A1.3, yet provided no rationale for the 92-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural explanation of 92-month sentence | Phillips argues the court failed to justify the 92-month term. | Phillips's appellation references inadequate reasoning for above-Guidelines sentence. | Procedural error; remand for explicit reasons. |
| Upward departure based on under-representation | Court relied on under-represented criminal history without adequate articulation. | Government contends SOR/PSR suffices or may reflect intended rationale. | Upward departure not properly explained; remand for articulation. |
| Impact of the error on substantial rights | Error could have altered Phillips’s sentence within the range. | No indication of a lesser sentence would have resulted; no impact shown. | Error affected substantial rights; remand warranted to reassess sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requires reasoned explanation for non-Guidelines sentence)
- Maress v. United States, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (non-Guidelines sentences must be reasoned under §3553(a))
- Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for forfeited sentencing objections)
- Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (guidelines interpretation and standard of review)
- United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (case-specific, fact-intensive analysis of whether error affects fairness)