UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6956
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a Culture, a/k/a
David,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-5)
Submitted: October 8, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Clive Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael
Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Clive Phillips appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. Because we conclude that the district court erred
in finding that Phillips’s Guidelines range was unchanged by the
Amendment, we vacate and remand to the district court for
further proceedings.
“We review a district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2)
for abuse of discretion, and its ruling as to the scope of its
legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v.
Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). “We are obliged to
accord substantial deference to a district court’s
interpretation of its own judgment.” Id. at 305. A district
court abuses its discretion, however, if it fails or refuses to
exercise discretion, or if it relies on erroneous legal or
factual premises. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.
1993).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of
imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered . . .
if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
2
§ 1B1.10, p.s. (2014). “Eligibility for consideration under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment . . . that
lowers the applicable [G]uideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(A). “In determining whether, and to what extent, a
reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment under
[§ 3582(c)(2)] and this policy statement is warranted, the court
shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the
guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at the
time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.
(2014).
At sentencing, Phillips was attributed with 24.06 kilograms
of cocaine base. Under Amendment 782, Phillips’s base offense
level is 36, rather than the base offense level of 42 with which
he was attributed at sentencing. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2014)
(providing for offense level 36 for offense involving at least
8.4 kilograms, but less than 25.2 kilograms of cocaine base).
After adding the five levels to his offense level that were
added to his original offense level, and in conjunction with his
category I criminal history, Phillips’s Guidelines range is now
324-405 months. USSG Ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table).
Accordingly, Phillips’s Guidelines range of life has been
reduced under Amendment 782.
3
We thus conclude that the district court erred in
determining that Amendment 782 did not lower Phillips’s
Guidelines range. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
order and remand so that the court may consider whether to grant
any sentence reduction for which Phillips is eligible. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4