United States of America v. Bob Arthur Phillips

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3458
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Bob Arthur Phillips
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: June 22, 2025
Filed: June 25, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bob Phillips appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pled guilty to distributing child sexual abuse material. Phillips entered a
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal his sentence and the denial of
a motion to suppress evidence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district
court erred in denying Phillips’s motion to suppress, and that his prison term is
substantively unreasonable.
We first find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress. See United States
v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The July 2023
search warrant authorized law enforcement to seize any depiction of child sexual
abuse--including photographs, videos, and computer files--which reasonably may
have been contained in the seized cell phones. See United States v. Oliver, 950 F.3d
556, 564-65 (8th Cir. 2020) (cell phones may be seized when they may contain other
items specifically listed in search warrant). The delay in requesting the October 2023
search warrant was reasonable, as the initial search was completed within a few days
of the July warrant, Phillips never requested the return of the cell phone, and the case
agent explained why he prioritized analyzing the data extracted from other seized
electronic devices. See United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 616-17 (8th Cir. 2021)
(reasonableness of delay determined by totality of circumstances); United States v.
Bragg, 44 F.4th 1067, 1072-73 (8th Cir. 2022) (defendants who never sought return
of seized property did not prove delay in search adversely affected interests protected
by Fourth Amendment). Alternatively, the good-faith exception would apply to both
warrants, which were duly signed by state court judges. See United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984) (evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on warrant
issued by detached and neutral magistrate is admissible); United States v. Escudero,
100 F.4th 964, 968 (8th Cir. 2024) (under Leon good-faith exception to exclusionary
rule, evidence will not be suppressed if executing officer’s reliance upon warrant was
objectively reasonable).
We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors;
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

there is no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error
of judgment in weighing relevant factors; and the sentence was below the advisory
Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (abuse of discretion review); United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226,
1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has wide latitude in weighing relevant factors);
United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (when district court
varies below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its
discretion in not varying further). We have independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for
appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --