United States of America v. Conrad Lyons, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1281
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Conrad Lyons, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: October 29, 2025
Filed: November 18, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Conrad Lyons, Jr. appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by the district
court1 after he pleaded guilty to firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 Lyons. See United States v. Parker, 112 F.4th 621, 622-23 (8th Cir.
2024) (per curiam) (standard of review). When calculating the United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) advisory range, the court did not
impermissibly “double count” the nature of the firearm by using it both to determine
the base offense level and to apply an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3).
See United States v. Lee, 351 F.3d 350, 351-52 (8th Cir. 2003). The court likewise
permissibly used Lyons’s prior convictions to determine both the base offense level
and criminal history category. See United States v. Thornberg, 326 F.3d 1023, 1027
(8th Cir. 2003).
Lyons’s counsel admits these calculations were consistent with our precedent,
but nonetheless argues that “the district court abused its discretion by imposing an
unreasonable harsh sentence” after failing to consider whether the cumulative effect
of this double counting resulted in a Guidelines range that inaccurately reflected the
seriousness of the offense and Lyons’s history and characteristics. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1) and (2)(A). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals otherwise. In
its thorough discussion of both aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors, the
district court described Lyon’s unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun with
active shells in public was of “special concern” and his “relentless” criminal history
was “extremely concerning” in that prior punishments had not stopped him from
committing more crimes. But nothing in the record indicates the weight the district
court placed on these factors was in any way “undue.” See Parker, 112 F.4th at 62.
See also United States v. Thorne, 896 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam)
(stating a district court may consider factors already accounted for in the Guidelines
range). We conclude the 120 month sentence, which was within the Guidelines
range, was not substantively unreasonable.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --