United States of America v. Jason Douglas Ringold

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[Unpublished]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

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --