United States v. Stephen Thorp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-1152
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: May 12, 2026 Filed: June 8, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________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.

1 The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. § 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-