United States of America v. Michael Phillips

The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of*
Michigan, sitting by designation.
Title 18, § 3582(c)(2) reads, in pertinent part, as follows:1
in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), . . . the court may
reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0528n.06
No. 08-4231
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL PHILLIPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and COHN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. This is a criminal case. Defendant-appellant, Michael Phillips (“Phillips”),
appeals from a district court order denying his motion for sentence modification pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Phillips’ motion is based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing1
Guidelines, which—together with Amendment 713—retroactively reduces by two points the base
offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district court denied Phillips’ motion,
concluding that because he was sentenced as a career offender, he is ineligible for relief.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
On appeal, Phillips argues that the district court erroneously concluded that career offenders
are ineligible for sentence modifications under § 3582(c)(2).
On July 14, 2009, this Court determined that defendants who are sentenced as career
offenders are ineligible for sentence modifications based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. See
United States v. Perdue, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-4358, 2009 WL 2015242 (6th Cir. July 14, 2009).
Perdue is directly on point and forecloses Phillips’ argument.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --