United States v. Cory Phillips

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 7, 2020
Docket20-1188
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Cory Phillips (United States v. Cory Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cory Phillips, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

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Submitted: July 31, 2020 Filed: August 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________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-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Susan Titlbach
300 F.3d 919 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Cory Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cory-phillips-ca8-2020.