Court Opinion

ID: 9894610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 15:01:17.614844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:08.034056
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2702
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

          LaRhonda Dawnielle Jenkins, also known as LaRonda Jenkins

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Iowa
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: October 23, 2023
                            Filed: November 2, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      LaRhonda Jenkins appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she
pled guilty to perjury. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
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 Jenkins. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d
1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting when a district court has varied below Guidelines
range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying
downward further). 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 leave to withdraw and affirm.
                        ______________________________

                                          -2-