The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-2810•United States of America v. Andrew Kenneth Woock-Shelton
24-2810Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2302
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Andrew Kenneth Woock-Shelton
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 4, 2026
Filed: March 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Woock-Shelton appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved for
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing the district court erred in applying a cross-reference to the Guidelines
provision for attempted murder.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not err in
calculating the Guidelines range using the cross-reference. See United States v.
Tunley, 664 F.3d 1260, 1261-62 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); see also United
States v. Conley, No. 21-2094, 2022 WL 2979771, at *1-3 (8th Cir. July 28, 2022)
(unpublished per curiam) (affirming application of cross-reference to Guidelines
provision for attempted second-degree murder; noting case law showing that shooting
at group of people demonstrates specific intent to kill). Further, we have reviewed
the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found
no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.