The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >United States v. Ryan Horn
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ryan Horn

15-2330·Judge: Arnold, Per Curiam, Smith, Wollman·Attorney: Erin R. Eldridge, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Ryan Douglas Horn, Leavenworth, KS, pro se., Brian Dean Johnson, Jacobsen & Johnson, Cedar Rapids, IA, for DefendanL-Ap-pellant.0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _______________________...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _______________________...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 15-2330 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ryan Douglas Horn

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________

Submitted: February 10, 2016 Filed: February 16, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Horn directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and a firearm offense and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Horn’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

-2-

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap