United States of America v. Clint Eugene Phillips

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2974
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Clint Eugene Phillips
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: January 12, 2026
Filed: June 4, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Clint Eugene Phillips reported to his supervising officer as ordered after
concerns arose about his compliance with supervision conditions. He arrived at the
meeting on an unregistered motorcycle and declined to provide a urine sample.
Officers briefly detained Phillips for their safety and searched him pursuant to an
active warrantless search waiver. While searching Phillips’s person, officers

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
discovered a knife hidden in his bracelet. Officers then searched his motorcycle and
discovered approximately 250 grams of a mixture of methamphetamine, a digital
scale, an electric vaporizer, a glass pipe, and a plastic solo cup. The officers
subsequently searched Phillips’s home and located drug paraphernalia, clear bags,
bongs, digital scales, measuring devices, and suspected methamphetamine.
Additionally, in the bedroom they found two foam heads, one of which had a piece
of tape over the mouth with the words “help me” written on the tape. Law
enforcement also found a stolen motorcycle, several vehicle titles signed by seller
but not buyer, keys inside a safe, and several vehicles and motorcycles at Phillips’s
home. None of these vehicles were included in his sex offender registration
information. Officers also found several prohibited electronic media devices. After
the search, the investigation continued into Phillips’s digital life. There, officers
discovered multiple messages indicating drug sales and large Cash App transactions.
Based on this evidence, Phillips was charged in state court and convicted of
various state offenses. He was sentenced to imprisonment at the Arkansas
Department of Corrections.
In federal court, Phillips pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Prior to his federal sentencing hearing,
the probation office calculated Phillips’s initial offense level to be 32 but reduced it
to 29 based on a 3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Phillips’s
criminal history category was set at VI based on a nearly 30-year history of more
than two dozen convictions. These included drug-related offenses, assault, and
sexual assault. The probation office calculated the advisory Guidelines range to be
between 151 and 188 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing, the government requested an upward variance, while Phillips
sought a low-end sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment. Phillips’s counsel argued
that Phillips was merely a small-time dealer and a serious addict. He asserted that
many of Phillips’s previous convictions received only probation and suspended

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
sentences, demonstrating that mitigating factors attended his crimes. Phillips then
spoke and apologized for his crime.
In pronouncing its sentence, the district court1 began by acknowledging the
recommended Guidelines range and addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
beginning with the aggravating factors. It acknowledged the seriousness of the
offense itself due to the addictive power of methamphetamine and the large
quantity—over 279 grams—that Phillips possessed. The district court also discussed
the search evidence. The evidence showed that Phillips, while not likely leading the
enterprise, consistently sold illegal narcotics. The district court found Phillips’s
brazen arrival at a probation appointment with this large quantity of
methamphetamine to be an aggravating factor. The district court also placed
considerable weight on the seriousness of his criminal history.
The district court then examined Phillips’s proffered mitigating factors.
Looking at the offense conduct, the district court found it mitigating that there was
no violence involved and no weapon possessed. Then to the personal side, the district
court acknowledged that Phillips’s addiction began early in life, while his brain was
still developing, and agreed with Phillips’s counsel that he experienced significant
parental neglect. The district court acknowledged that Phillips had a high school
degree and had worked when not in prison. The district court considered national
sentencing data comparing Phillips and other individuals in a similar Guidelines cell.
The median sentence for such offenders was 84 to 85 months. The court noted,
however, that Phillips’s criminal history exceeded most of them.
The court concluded its pronouncement by expressing its concern that Phillips
was highly likely to recidivate. Based on all the factors, the court found that an
upward variance was appropriate and sentenced Phillips to 210 months’
imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised release.
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
We review “the substantive reasonableness of [an] above-Guidelines sentence
. . . under a ‘deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v. Cutler, 87
F.4th 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to
consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the
appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.”
Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (citation modified). This court “may consider the extent
of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 461–62
(quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “[I]t will be the unusual case
when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the
applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” Id. at 464 (quoting
United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
Phillips argues that that the district court erred in imposing the above-range
Guidelines sentence. He argues that the district court erroneously weighed the
sentencing factors. Specifically, he argues that the court should have given more
weight to the absence of weapons or violence in his offense conduct and his long-
term addiction. However, the district court specifically addressed these factors.
Phillips’s challenge is only to the weight assigned to them. He has not shown that
the district court abused its considerable discretion in weighing these factors less
than he preferred. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011)
(“However, regardless of some mitigating circumstances, a sentencing court has
wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors
greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence. Simply because
the district court weighed relevant factors . . . more heavily than Farmer would prefer
does not mean the district court abused its discretion.” (citation modified)).
Phillips also takes issue with his sentence being higher than that of similarly
situated defendants nationwide. The district court acknowledged that the nationwide
median sentence for defendants within Phillips’s Guidelines cell was 84 to 85

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
months’ imprisonment. But the court concluded that such a sentence would be
inadequate for Phillips’s specific offense and extensive criminal history. “An
argument that non-conspirator defendants received shorter sentences for comparable
offenses is at base a disagreement with the weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. This
disagreement does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Soliz,
857 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation modified). Thus, Phillips’s sentence
exceeding the nationwide median did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity
rendering the sentence substantively unreasonable.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --