United States of America v. Justin L. Collins

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3574
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Justin L. Collins
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 22, 2026
Filed: May 28, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Justin L. Collins appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense and the
district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 144 months in prison.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
On appeal, Collins argues that the magnitude of the upward variance is
unwarranted and substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review of the record and
the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. First, the record shows that the district court carefully considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a
relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are
reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard); United States v. Duke, 932 F.3d 1056, 1063 (8th Cir. 2019) (district court
has wide latitude to assign some § 3553(a) factors greater weight than others). This
court further concludes that the upward variance was not an abuse of discretion even
though some of the section 3553(a) factors were considered both for purposes of
determining the applicable Guidelines range, and to justify the upward variance. See
United States v. Butler, 168 F.4th 1107, 1111 (8th Cir. 2026) (it is well-settled that
a court may rely on the same factors to establish the Guidelines range and justify an
upward variance); United States v. Thorne, 896 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2018)
(rejecting argument that U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement already accounted
for conduct; courts may determine that weight Guidelines assigned to particular
factor was insufficient, and facts that have already been accounted for in calculating
Guidelines range can be basis for variance). We find no error in the extent of the
upward variance, given the court’s discussion of the aggravating aspects of Collins’s
circumstances. See United States v. Mitchell, 825 F.3d 422, 426 (8th Cir. 2016) (per
curiam) (when reviewing above-Guidelines sentence, appellate court considers
extent of deviation but must give due deference to district court’s decision that
sentencing factors justify extent of variance).
Finally, we conclude the record shows that the court considered the applicable
Guidelines range, the parties’ sentencing recommendations, the letter of support
Collins submitted, and the Judicial Sentencing Information data; and Collins offers
no support for his contention that such data points should have been more heavily
weighted or should have otherwise constrained the court’s ability to vary upward.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Cf. United States v. Hubbs, 18 F.4th 570, 573 (8th Cir. 2021) (government’s
sentencing recommendation does not foreclose district court from varying upward;
it is the court, not the government, that is responsible for determining the appropriate
sentence after considering the § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Hill, 8 F.4th 757,
761 (8th Cir. 2021) (national statistics on sentences provide appellate court with no
principled basis to say which defendants received appropriate sentence); United
States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentence is not unreasonable when
court made individualized assessment based on facts presented and addressed
defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of § 3553(a) factors).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --