UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILLIPS

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:20-CR-00043
:
EVAN RISHARD PHILLIPS, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
:
ORDER
The Court held a hearing on the United States Probation Office’s Petition (Doc. 46) to
revoke Defendant Evan Rishard Phillips’s supervised release. This Order memorializes that
hearing. Previously, Phillips pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
in violation of 18 USC §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The Petition alleges fourteen violations
of his supervised release. (Doc. 46 at 1-2).
At the hearing, Defense Counsel acknowledged that Phillips had been provided with
a copy of the Petition for revocation and that Counsel had reviewed it with him. The Court
advised Phillips of his rights to a hearing on the allegations, in which the Government
would be required to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence; to present
evidence in his defense; and to testify in his defense. Phillips was also advised that he was
not required to testify or present a defense and whether he would testify was his decision—
all of which Phillips acknowledged he understood. The Court also confirmed from Phillips
that he had received the Petition and the Revocation Report (Doc. 56) and reviewed them.
Phillips stated that he had spoken to Counsel and wished to stipulate to Violation One.
The Court then held a hearing on the allegation of Violation 10. The Government
presented evidence on the matter and the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence
that Phillips committed Violation 10. Because Phillips stipulated to Violation One and the
Court found Violation Ten, the Government withdrew the allegations of Violation Two,
Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen. The
Court also found that Phillips waiver of a hearing on the Petition as to Violation One was
freely, knowingly, and voluntarily done.
Case 7:20-cr-00043-WLS-ALS Document 58 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Because Williams stipulated and admitted to Violations One and the Government
sufficiently proved Violation Ten by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court found
that the violations in the Petition had been established by a preponderance of the
evidence.1 	Once 	the 	violations 	had 	been 	established, 	the 	Court 	heard 	from 	the
Government, 	Defense 	Counsel, 	and 	Defendant 	Phillips. 	Neither 	Phillips 	nor 	the
Government objected to the Revocation Report. The Court then declared Phillips’s
supervised release revoked.
The Court determined Phillips’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range to be 24 months
based on Grade A violation, a criminal history category of VI, and the statutory maximum
sentence. Considering the totality of circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e)
factors, the Court sentenced Phillips to twenty-four months. The Court found this sentence
appropriate to reflect the seriousness of Phillips’s conduct and to protect the public. Phillips’s
imprisonment shall be followed by no supervised release.
For these reasons, the Petition (Doc. 46) is GRANTED, and Phillips’s supervised
release is REVOKED. Defendant is sentenced to twenty-four months. After his release, he
will have no term of supervised release.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of December 2025.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 “Due process requires that the court state ‘the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
[supervised release.’” United States v. Dees, 452 F. App’x 929, 931 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States
v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994)). “This requirement is satisfied when the record is
‘sufficiently complete to advise the parties and the reviewing court of the reasons for the revocation
of supervised release and the evidence the decision maker relied upon.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Case 7:20-cr-00043-WLS-ALS Document 58 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 2