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)
24-3255•United States of America v. Lasandra Kaye Kearney
24-3255Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJun 30, 2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2114
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lasandra Kaye Kearney
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: June 8, 2026
Filed: June 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lasandra Kaye Kearney, who pled guilty to conspiring to distribute a
controlled substance and possessing a firearm as a felon, appeals after the district
court1 imposed a sentence below the United States Sentencing Guidelines range.
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Her counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Upon careful review, this court concludes the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Kearney. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-
62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review); see also
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 Guidelines range). The district court properly
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court
overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See
Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. Further, having independently reviewed the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous
issues for appeal.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.