United States of America v. Stephen Jay Thorp

24-3255Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30 giu 2026

Testo completo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1152
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stephen Jay Thorp
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2026
Filed: June 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Thorp appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after a jury
convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 922(g)(1). He contends his conviction under section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional
as applied to him and argues that his sentence is unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude Thorp’s argument as to the constitutionality
of section 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Jackson.
110 F.4th 1120, 1125-29 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708 (2025). We
further conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See United States v. Seys, 27 F.4th 606, 611-12 (8th Cir. 2022) (sentences
are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under narrow and deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant
factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error
of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Particularly, the record establishes that
the district court considered mitigating factors and it had wide latitude to weigh the
appropriate factors and assign some greater weight than others in determining the
sentence. See United States v. Hubbs, 18 F.4th 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.