United States v. Corey Thomas
This text of United States v. Corey Thomas (United States v. Corey Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 24-3627 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Corey Deandra Thomas
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern ____________
Submitted: April 23, 2026 Filed: April 28, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.
Corey Thomas 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 Thomas, as the record reflects the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the mitigating factors asserted by Thomas, and sentenced him above the Guidelines range based on an individualized assessment of the nature of the offense and his history and characteristics. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review; 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); United States v. Hubbs, 18 F.4th 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2021) (district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some greater weight than others to determine appropriate sentence); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance reasonable where court made individualized assessment based on facts presented).
Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Corey Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-corey-thomas-ca8-2026.