The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 156-month prison sentence for Stephen Jerome Brinson, who was convicted of fentanyl distribution in a case that highlights ongoing judicial approaches to drug sentencing amid the nation's opioid crisis.
Brinson challenged his resentencing on appeal, arguing that the 13-year term was substantively unreasonable. The sentence represented an upward variance from federal sentencing guidelines, meaning the district court imposed a harsher penalty than the standard range typically recommended for similar offenses.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, where Brinson was initially sentenced under case number 4:21-cr-00013-AW-MAF-1. The appellate court's decision, filed Jan. 28, 2026, was handled on a non-argument calendar, meaning the three-judge panel reviewed the case based on written briefs without oral arguments.
In his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Brinson contended that the district court failed to properly weigh several mitigating factors during sentencing. Specifically, he argued the trial judge did not adequately consider his age, the applicable guidelines range, his health condition, demonstrated remorse, and time he had already served for violating supervised release terms.
The Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, applied established legal standards for reviewing sentence appeals. When evaluating claims of substantive unreasonableness, federal appeals courts examine the totality of circumstances under an abuse of discretion standard, as established in the Supreme Court's decision in *Gall v. United States* (2007).
Under this framework, the burden falls on the defendant challenging the sentence to demonstrate that it is unreasonable based on the specific facts of the case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These statutory factors require judges to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant's history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, public protection, and other policy considerations.
The court's decision to issue a per curiam opinion indicates unanimous agreement among the three judges, though the brief nature of the published excerpt suggests the panel found Brinson's arguments insufficient to warrant detailed analysis or establish reversible error.
Fentanyl-related prosecutions have become increasingly common as federal authorities respond to the drug's role in overdose deaths nationwide. The synthetic opioid is significantly more potent than heroin and has been linked to a surge in fatal overdoses across the United States. Courts have generally imposed substantial sentences for fentanyl distribution, often exceeding standard guideline ranges due to the drug's lethal potential.
Upward variances in drug cases typically reflect judicial recognition of aggravating factors that warrant harsher punishment than guidelines might suggest. These can include the quantity of drugs involved, the defendant's role in the distribution network, criminal history, or the particular danger posed by substances like fentanyl.
Brinson's argument about time served for supervised release violations suggests he had previously been convicted and sentenced to a term of post-incarceration monitoring. Violations of supervised release conditions often result in additional custody time, and defendants sometimes argue this should be credited against new sentences.
The case reflects broader tensions in federal drug sentencing, where judges must balance individual circumstances against the need to address the ongoing opioid epidemic. Defense attorneys frequently argue for sentences closer to guideline minimums, citing factors like their clients' addiction issues, family circumstances, or rehabilitation efforts.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, often seek upward variances in fentanyl cases, emphasizing the drug's deadly nature and the need for deterrent sentences. The synthetic opioid's potency means even small quantities can prove fatal, leading many courts to view fentanyl distribution as particularly serious.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance suggests the district court properly exercised its sentencing discretion within established legal parameters. While the appeals court acknowledged Brinson's mitigation arguments, the panel evidently concluded they were insufficient to render the 156-month sentence unreasonable under federal standards.
This decision joins a growing body of appellate precedent generally supporting substantial sentences for fentanyl distribution. As federal courts continue addressing opioid-related prosecutions, the balance between individual mitigation and public safety concerns remains a central consideration in sentencing determinations.
The case outcome reinforces that successful sentence appeals require demonstrating clear abuse of judicial discretion rather than mere disagreement with the trial court's weighing of relevant factors. For defendants facing fentanyl charges, the decision underscores the serious consequences federal courts are willing to impose for distributing this particularly dangerous controlled substance.