U.S. v. Phillips

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant violated terms of his supervised release and in sentencing him to 24-month term of incarceration based, in part, on finding that prison term was warranted in order to hold him “accountable” for his actions. While defendant argued that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing on instant violation because “accountability” is not factor listed in revocation statute (18 USC section 3583(e)), Dist. Ct. could properly consider accountability as factor in sentencing since accountability for one’s actions was sufficiently akin to “need for deterrence” factor contained in section 3583(e). (Dissent filed.)