United States of America v. Shane C. Hyde

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3042
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shane C. Hyde
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 9, 2026
Filed: June 12, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shane Hyde appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded
guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence and the sufficiency of the allocution time
given to Hyde during sentencing.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); United States v.
Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable
where court made individualized assessment based on facts presented); United States
v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011) (simply because district court
weighed relevant factors more heavily than defendant preferred does not mean it
abused discretion); United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024)
(district court has wide latitude to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and to assign
some factors greater weight than others). Further, he has not presented any
information about what he would have said during allocution that might have
changed the outcome. See United States v. Thurmond, 914 F.3d 612, 614-15 (8th
Cir. 2019) (reviewing for plain error when defendant did not object to being denied
right to allocution; concluding defendant failed to show serious error affecting
proceedings when he did not specify what he would have said in allocution that might
have mitigated his sentence).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --