Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-3095 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Darius Stackhouse lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: November 3, 2026 Filed: November 6, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before L.R. SMITH, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Darius Stackhouse appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to 300 months in prison. On appeal, he challenges his conviction and his sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Stackhouse’s conviction, including for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, which was supported by a cooperating co- conspirator’s testimony about Stackhouse carrying a handgun while delivering methamphetamine; the discovery of a handgun near a large quantity of cash and a digital scale, along with the presence of methamphetamine elsewhere in the house; and expert testimony about the use of firearms by drug dealers. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction is reviewed de novo); United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court does not weigh evidence or assess credibility of witnesses; examining evidence in light most favorable to verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences that tend to support jury verdict; appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed 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, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying further). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -3-