United States of America v. Krissy Louise Hinsley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2594
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Krissy Louise Hinsley
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Eastern
____________
Submitted: July 15, 2026
Filed: July 20, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Krissy Hinsley appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she
pleaded guilty to two counts of child neglect in Indian country. She argues the court
1The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

failed to explain why mitigating factors did not warrant a shorter sentence, placed too
little weight on those factors, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Hinsley. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that, in reviewing the imposition of a sentence,
this court first ensures that there was no significant procedural error, then considers
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the totality of the
circumstances). First, we discern no plain procedural error in the explanation for
Hinsley’s sentence, as the court stated it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, referred to counsel’s mitigating arguments, and focused on the aggravating
factors in imposing the sentence. See United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082,
1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (clarifying that a procedural challenge is reviewed for plain error
when the defendant did not object at sentencing); see also United States v. Leonard,
785 F.3d 303, 306 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding that the sentencing court need not
specifically respond to defendant’s every mitigating argument; court adequately
explained the sentence when it focused on several aggravating factors after hearing
mitigating argument). Next, Hinsley’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable,
as the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, and there is no
indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors.
See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461-62 (explaining substantive reasonableness); see also
United States v. Fitzpatrick, 943 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (noting that the
sentencing court’s decision not to weigh the defendant’s difficult upbringing as
heavily as he preferred did not justify reversal).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --