United States v. Jason Ringold

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-2116

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jason Douglas Ringold

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: March 30, 2026 Filed: April 2, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Ringold appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel has moved

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ringold. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (concluding district court did not abuse its discretion where it considered and rejected argument based on policy disagreement with Guidelines); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that the district court abused its discretion in not varying further when it varied below the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual range). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________