USA v. Grigsby

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 12-10174-JWB
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s second motion for establishment of a
restitution payment schedule. (Doc. 375.) The motion is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
“Defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of knowingly persuading a 9-year-old child to engage
in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct, using
materials in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a);
one count of knowingly possessing matters containing visual depictions of minors, the production
of which involved use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct and which depictions were
of such conduct, and which had been shipped in interstate commerce by computer, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); and one count of knowingly possessing in or affecting commerce nine
specified firearms and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g).” (Doc. 361 at 1-2.) The court has already set forth the facts in this case at length
in its prior order. (Id.) In 2013, Defendant was sentenced to a term of 260 years imprisonment
and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $140,000 for the above conduct. 	(Id. at 2.)
Defendant was also prohibited from having any contact with the minor victim (Defendant’s
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB Document 377 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
daughter) or the victim’s family. 	(Id.) 	The Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence the
following year. (Id.)
In 2022, Defendant filed a motion challenging his restitution order. (Id. at 6.) There, he
argued that when the court imposed his sentence, it “improperly delegated its authority to the
Bureau of Prisons by ‘ordering payment of restitution immediately without specifying any
payment schedule.’” (Id.) (quoting Doc. 354 at 2.) The court construed that motion “as one for
relief from final judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” 	(Id.) 	The court denied
Defendant’s motion as it found the sentencing court properly established a restitution payment
plan in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). (Id.) The court’s sentence made restitution due
immediately and set a minimum payment limit of “not less than 10% of the funds deposited each
month into the inmate’s trust fund account.” (Id.) (quoting Doc. 98 at 8) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
On December 22, 2025, Defendant filed another motion for establishment of a restitution
payment schedule. 	(Doc. 375.) 	In this motion, Defendant argues that under Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) rules, inmates are exempt from paying restitution if their account’s income for a particular
month is under $75. (Id. at 2.) According to Defendant, funds deposited in his account “rarely”
exceed $20 per month. 	(Id. at 1.) 	Defendant claims he is responsible for paying for certain
expenses in prison that deplete his account balance, so restitution payments have not been paid in
over two years. (Id.) Defendant claims that the BOP will not withdraw less than $25.00 from an
inmate’s account. (Id.) As Defendant rarely earns more than $20 per month, money is apparently
rarely withdrawn to make restitution payments. (Id.)
All that said, the court cannot alter Defendant’s restitution payment schedule or change the
BOP’s rules on withdrawals. 	Defendant has identified no authority for the court to do so.
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB Document 377 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Moreover, as the court explained in its prior order, the sentencing court properly established a
restitution payment schedule. (Doc. 361 at 6.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB Document 377 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3