United States v. Josh Britton

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 1, 2026
Docket24-3555
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Josh Britton (United States v. Josh Britton) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Josh Britton, (8th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

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Submitted: April 15, 2026 Filed: May 1, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________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. ____________ 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. ______________________________

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

United States v. Mangum
625 F.3d 466 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Bernard Manuel
73 F.4th 989 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Josh Britton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-josh-britton-ca8-2026.