United States of America v. Brandon Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3163
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brandon Mitchell
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: February 9, 2026
Filed: April 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brandon Mitchell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 84 months
1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
in prison. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Mitchell believes his above-guidelines 84-month sentence (range was 37 to
46 months) is substantively unreasonable. This court reviews “the imposition of
sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range” for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). A court
abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing those factors.” United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir.
2017). “[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.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464.
The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and performed
an individualized assessment of the case. It noted that Mitchell had a gun with a
Glock switch, fled from police, and threw the gun where “a kid or somebody else
who wished to do harm with it” could find it. The court considered Mitchell’s
history, expressing concern about prior offenses that involved firearms, including
“callously” shooting a horse “for the fun of it,” pointing guns at and threatening
people, and breaking into someone’s house. It noted that his prior sentences had not
deterred his criminal conduct. And it referenced his troubled childhood, mental
health issues, and desire to improve himself. After considering the factors (and
noting that it considered up to a 96-month sentence), the district court determined
84 months was appropriate. It did not abuse its discretion in making that
determination. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009)
(“Where the district court in imposing a sentence makes ‘an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented,’ addressing the defendant’s proffered
information in its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, such sentence is not
unreasonable.”), quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 38, 50 (2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --