United States v. Josh Britton

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Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2026 Filed: May 1, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.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. ______________________________

The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-