FirstAlerts

Burlington Man Sentenced to Over 6 Years in Federal Prison for Firearm Charges

Stone Thomas Graham, 26, was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison for possessing firearms as a felon.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 3, 2026, 3:02 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 4h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 3, 2026, 1:38 p.m. ET — checked 4h ago.

A Burlington, Iowa man was on September 3, 2026, to 78 months in federal prison for possessing a firearm as a felon, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Iowa. Public court documents and evidence presented at sentencing show that between August 2025 and November 2025, Stone Thomas Graham, 26, possessed at least three firearms. Graham is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition due to a conviction from an incident in November 2019, during which he discharged a firearm at other people, including police officers. He was granted parole for the state offense in May 2024 and discharged from that parole in August 2025, days before he possessed firearms. One of the firearms he possessed in 2025 was the same pump-action shotgun he possessed in November 2019. After completing his prison term, Graham will be required to serve a three-year term of supervised release. There is no parole in the federal system. The Southwest Iowa Narcotics Enforcement Task Force investigated the case. The announcement was made by United States Attorney David C. Waterman.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 19:02current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.