The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1338•United States of America v. Josh Britton
25-1338Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 29, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3555
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Josh Britton
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2026
Filed: May 1, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
-- 1 of 2 --
PER CURIAM.
Josh Britton appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to a firearm offense. He argues the court imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence.
After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Britton, as the court properly considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing substantive
reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of
discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor that should have
received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United
States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance reasonable
where court made individualized assessment based on facts presented). Moreover,
we conclude the district court did not err in its consideration of factors already taken
into account in Britton’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range. See United States
v. Manuel, 73 F.4th 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2023) (“well-settled” that district court may
rely on factors considered in determining Guidelines range to justify upward
variance).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.