Court filing
Memorandum Opinion Regarding Sentencing — United States v. Phillips (Dkt. 123, N.D. Ala.)
Summary
A memorandum opinion regarding sentencing by United States District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala in United States v. Danielle A. Phillips, Case No. 2:23-CR-00332-MHH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, filed May 16, 2025 as Document 123. Phillips, a practicing attorney in El Paso, Texas, pleaded guilty on November 21, 2023 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. At the February 20, 2025 sentencing hearing the United States objected to the court hearing her objections to the presentence report released June 13, 2024, after the government had sought a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court explains why it finds the objection not well-taken and why it allowed the new objection.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Filed May 16, 2025 in Danielle A. Phillips; one of 1 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-16 |
Cite this document
“Memorandum Opinion Regarding Sentencing — United States v. Phillips (Dkt. 123, N.D. Ala.).”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 2:23-cr-00332, Doc. 123, filed 2025-05-16. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-danielle-a-phillips-alnd-186744/2025-05-16-gov-uscourts-alnd-186744-123-0-doc-123/
, SHA-256 f52c68cee7478ca9ca898f76b2b5e464088afdd1e36b83b09438a617171a0eb3.Full text
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 1 of 9 FILED
2025 May-16 PM 02:45
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:23-CR-00332-MHH-JHE-
DANIELLE A. PHILLIPS, 2
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING SENTENCING
At the February 20, 2025 sentencing hearing in this matter, the United States
objected to the Court’s decision to hear objections from Ms. Phillips to the
presentence investigation report that the Probation Office released on June 13, 2024.
For the reasons discussed below, the objection is not well-taken.
By way of background, on November 21, 2023, Ms. Phillips pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. (Nov. 21, 2023 minute entry). At
the time, Ms. Phillips was a practicing attorney in El Paso, Texas. (Doc. 120, p.
20).1 Ms. Phillips’s plea agreement obligated her to “report her conviction to any
1
Under her pretrial bond, Ms. Phillips could travel to this judicial district and the States of Texas,
New Mexico, and Arizona. (Doc. 7, p. 3).
1
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 2 of 9
jurisdiction in which she [was] licensed as an attorney to practice law within 14 days
of entering her guilty plea.” (Doc. 42, p. 1; see also Doc. 119, p. 6, ¶ 9). 2
On January 19, 2024, by videoconference, a presentence writer from the
United States Probation Office interviewed Ms. Phillips. (Doc. 119, p. 18, ¶ 52). At
the time, Mr. Glennon Threatt represented Ms. Phillips, and he participated in the
interview. (Doc. 119, pp. 1, 18, ¶ 52). During the interview, Ms. Phillips reported
that she “shut down her legal practice as she [would] likely be disbarred or [would]
surrender her license to practice.” (Doc. 119, p. 21, ¶ 73). Ms. Phillips was disbarred
from the District of New Mexico on February 27, 2024. (Doc. 119, p. 21, ¶ 74).
The Probation Office released its initial PSR on February 28, 2024. (Doc.
119, p. 1). Mr. Threatt did not object to the PSR. On March 13, 2024, the
government filed objections to the PSR to clarify information in the report regarding
Ms. Phillips’s disbarment in New Mexico. (Doc. 56). The government stated that
the clarification did not affect either Ms. Phillips’s offense level or her criminal
history category. (Doc. 56, p. 1). Per the government’s objection, on April 1, 2024,
the Probation Office updated Ms. Phillips’s PSR. (Doc. 56, p. 2; Doc. 120, p. 20, ¶
74). Mr. Threatt did not file objections to the April 1, 2024 PSR. Under the February
2
In August 2023, while she was represented by another attorney, Ms. Phillips signed a plea
agreement containing an identical provision. (Doc. 3, p. 1).
2
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 3 of 9
and April 2024 PSRs, Ms. Phillips’s guideline imprisonment range was 30 to 37
months. (Doc. 120, p. 23, ¶ 89).
On May 3, 2024, the Court set Ms. Phillips’s sentencing hearing for July 9,
2024. (Doc. 67).3 On May 31, 2024, the government filed objections to the PSR.
(Doc. 68). The government acknowledged that its objections were untimely but
asked the Court to accept the objections because there was good cause for the delay.
(Doc. 68, pp. 1-2, n.1). The government stated:
Objections to the PSR were originally due by March 13, 2024. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1). However, the United States did not obtain the
newly discovered information discussed herein until May 17, 2024.
Thus, the United States asks the Court to accept these objections, as
“good cause” exists based on the newly discovered evidence that was
unknown during the original objection period. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(i)(1)(D). Additionally, the purpose of requiring objections to be
made within 14 days is to ensure that the parties, the Probation Office,
and the Court have sufficient time to consider any such objections. See
United States v. Aguilar-Ibarra, 740 F.3d 587, 591 (11th Cir. 2014).
Sentencing in this matter is scheduled for July 9, 2024, providing the
parties, the Probation Office, and the Court with ample opportunity to
consider the United States’ present objections.
(Doc. 68, pp. 1-2, n.1). 4
3
The Court had continued previous sentencing dates. (Docs. 63, 65).
4
Rule 32(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[w]ithin 14 days after
receiving the [PSR], the parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to
material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted
from the report.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(f)(1). For good cause shown, a district court may extend
the 14-day deadline. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(2).
3
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 4 of 9
The government asserted that on May 17, 2024, an individual informed the
government that she signed a contract with Ms. Phillips in March 2024 on Ms.
Phillips’s firm’s letterhead. Under the contract, Ms. Phillips agreed to represent the
individual’s husband in an immigration matter. (Doc. 68, p. 3). 5 The government
asked to amend the PSR to include a two-level enhancement for obstruction under
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The government argued that the obstruction enhancement applied
because Ms. Phillips gave false information to the presentence writer in the January
2024 presentence interview about her plans to close her law practice and because the
false information was material to the probation officer in preparing the PSR and to
the Court in determining Ms. Phillips’s sentence. (Doc. 68, pp. 2-6).
In its May 31 objections, the government also argued that Ms. Phillips should
not receive a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility because the
obstruction enhancement “‘ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted
responsibility for his criminal conduct.’” (Doc. 68, p. 7) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1
app. n. 4). In the alternative, the government argued that although it initially agreed
that Ms. Phillips accepted responsibility, it opposed a downward adjustment in
offense level for acceptance of responsibility because Ms. Phillips was untruthful
5
The government indicated that the individual paid Ms. Phillips $3,000 of a $7,500 fee via
CashApp and Zelle, that Ms. Phillips did not provide representation, and that Ms. Phillips did not
return the funds. (Doc. 68, p. 3).
4
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 5 of 9
during her January 2024 interview with the presentence writer. (Doc. 68, p. 8)
(quoting Doc. 42, pp. 10-11) (The “‘Government may oppose any adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility if the defendant . . . (4) is untruthful with the Court, the
Government, or the United States Probation Officer.”).
Without a ruling from the Court on the timeliness of the government’s May
31 objections to Ms. Phillips’s PSR, the Probation Office revised Ms. Phillips’s PSR
again on June 13, 2024. (Doc. 119, p. 1). The Probation Office added to Ms.
Phillips’s offense level calculation two levels for obstruction of justice, and the
Probation Office eliminated the points previously credited for acceptance of
responsibility. (Doc. 119, pp. 14-16, ¶¶ 29-31, 38, 41). The June 2024 PSR states:
According to the government, the defendant entered into a contract for
legal services on her law firm’s letterhead. The contract was drafted on
February 15, 2024, and signed by both parties, Phillips, and [M.T.], on
March 1, 2024, two days after the disclosure of the defendant’s
presentence report on February 28, 2024. The agreement was that the
defendant would represent [G.T.O.] as his immigration attorney. In the
presentence report, specifically the Employment Record section, it
notes that Phillips is unemployed. Additionally, paragraph 73 indicates
that the defendant “shut down her practice as she will likely be
disbarred or will surrender her license to practice.” The defendant did
not file any objections to the presentence report.
(Doc. 119, p. 14, ¶ 30). The revisions to the offense level calculation produced a
guideline imprisonment range of 51 to 63 months, which was capped at 60 months
by the applicable five-year statutory maximum. (Doc. 119, p. 23, ¶ 89).6 The June
6
The PSR mistakenly omits the 60-month cap on the guideline range.
5
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 6 of 9
2024 guideline imprisonment range nearly doubled the April 2024 range. Mr.
Threatt did not file objections to the June 13, 2024 PSR.
Days before the July 9 sentencing hearing, on July 6, 2024, Mr. Threatt filed
a motion to withdraw as Ms. Phillips’s attorney. (Doc. 72). In his motion, he stated
that he had not been able to communicate with Ms. Phillips, and he did not know
where she was. (Doc. 72). Mr. Threatt also filed a motion to continue the sentencing
hearing. In that motion, Mr. Threatt stated that he could not participate in a
sentencing hearing until July 12, 2024 for medical reasons. (Doc. 73).
The magistrate judge set a hearing on Mr. Threatt’s motion to withdraw.
(Docs. 74, 78). Before the hearing, Ms. Phillips filed a pro se motion to participate
in the hearing by telephone. (Doc. 88). In her August 2024 submission, Ms. Phillips
stated that Mr. Threatt had not given her notice of his medical leave and that she
already had incurred expense to travel to Birmingham for her sentencing hearing.
(Doc. 88, p. 1). Ms. Phillips indicated that she became aware of the hearing on Mr.
Threatt’s motion to withdraw when she called the Clerk’s Office to ask about her
case; she did not receive notice from Mr. Threatt. (Doc. 88). Upon receipt of a
financial affidavit from Ms. Phillips, the magistrate judge granted Mr. Threatt’s
motion to withdraw and, on August 22, 2024, appointed CJA attorney Scott Brower
to represent Ms. Phillips. (Doc. 91).
6
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 7 of 9
The Court held Ms. Phillips’s sentencing hearing on February 20, 2025. At
the hearing, Mr. Brower orally objected to the adjustments to Ms. Phillips’s offense
level in the June 13, 2024 PSR and the resulting increase in her guideline range. Mr.
Brower indicated that he did not receive the June 13, 2024 PSR from Mr. Threatt;
Mr. Brower had prepared for the hearing using the April 2024 PSR. It is not clear
from the record that Mr. Threatt received the June 13, 2024 PSR. By early July
2024, Mr. Threatt was addressing medical issues, so he may not have received the
June 2024 PSR.7 If Mr. Threatt did receive the June 2024 PSR, he did not provide
it to Mr. Brower when Mr. Brower began representing Ms. Phillips in August 2024,
and the Probation Office did not provide a copy of the June 2024 PSR to Mr. Brower.
On this record, the government’s objection to Mr. Bower’s objection to the
PSR as untimely is misplaced. Just as the Government asked the Court in May 2024
to consider its untimely objections to the PSR because the government had just
received the information that prompted its objection, Mr. Brower presented Ms.
Phillips’s objection to the PSR as soon as he became aware of the basis for an
objection. Nothing in the record suggests that Brower is responsible for the delay in
his receipt of the June 2024 PSR. If anything, it would have been error for the Court
7
Given that the guideline range in the June 2024 PSR doubled the guideline range in the February
and April PSRs, the absence of an objection to the June 13 PSR before June 27, 2024 suggests that
Mr. Threatt did not receive the June 2024 PSR or at least was not aware that he had received the
report because he was attending to medical concerns.
7
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 8 of 9
to sustain the government’s objection to the timeliness of Ms. Phillips’s objection to
the June 2024 PSR and continue to judgment without giving Mr. Brower time to
review and object to the June PSR. For the reasons discussed at the sentencing
hearing, the Court denied Mr. Brower’s request to continue that hearing.
A probation officer must disclose a presentence report “to the defendant, the
defendant’s attorney, and an attorney for the government at least 35 days before
sentencing unless the defendant waives this minimum period.” FED. R. CRIM. P.
32(e)(2). A party who objects to the report must file the objection in writing within
14 days of receipt of the PSR, FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(f)(1), but for good cause, a district
court may extend the 14-day deadline, FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(2). After receiving
written objections from the parties, the probation officer “may meet with the parties
to discuss the objections,” “investigate further,” and “revise the presentence report
as appropriate.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(f)(3). At least seven days before sentencing,
the probation officer must submit the presentence report to the district court with “an
addendum containing any unresolved objections, the grounds for those objections,
and the probation officer’s comments on them.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(g).
At sentencing, a district court “must allow the parties’ attorneys to comment
on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate
sentence,” and “may, for good cause, allow a party to make a new objection at any
time before sentence is imposed.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(1)(C), (D); see United
8
Case 2:23-cr-00332-MHH-GMB Document 123 Filed 05/16/25 Page 9 of 9
States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussing how, if good
cause is shown, a district court has the discretion to alter the time limit for filing an
objection or allow a party to make a new objection any time before imposing a
sentence) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(b)(2), (i)(1)(D)).
The Court had good cause to allow Mr. Brower to make new objections to the
June 13, 2024 revised PSR at the sentencing hearing. The issue of the government’s
out-of-time objection to the PSR in May 2024 first was presented to the Court at Ms.
Phillips’s sentencing hearing. Arguably, the June 2024 PSR was not in play until
the Court accepted the government’s untimely objection. The Court allowed Mr.
Brower to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters
relating to an appropriate sentence, including his lack of opportunity to object the
June 2024 PSR before sentencing. The Court properly exercised its discretion to
allow Ms. Phillips to make a new objection to the PSR before the Court imposed a
sentence.
DONE and ORDERED this May 16, 2025.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.alnd.186744.123.0.pdf
- Size
- 170,799 bytes
- SHA-256
- f52c68cee7478ca9ca898f76b2b5e464088afdd1e36b83b09438a617171a0eb3
- Original
- archive.org