United States v. O’Donnell — affirmed firearm conviction and attempted-murder sentencing cross-reference

Case
United States of America v. Anthony Kyle O’Donnell
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Judge
GRASZ; ERICKSON; STRAS
Date Decided
August 26, 2026
Docket No.
25-2746
Topics
Firearms; Motion to Dismiss; Sentencing Guidelines; Attempted Murder
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Anthony Kyle O’Donnell pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Iowa to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

O’Donnell appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He also challenged the district court’s use of the Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference for attempted first-degree murder when calculating his advisory Guidelines range.

The Court’s Holding

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly denied O’Donnell’s motion to dismiss because circuit precedent foreclosed his arguments. The court cited its 2026 decision in United States v. Richardson.

The court also held that the district court did not err by applying the attempted-first-degree-murder cross-reference. The unpublished per curiam opinion did not provide additional factual or legal analysis and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • Eighth Circuit precedent foreclosed O’Donnell’s challenge to the felon-in-possession indictment.
  • The district court properly used the attempted-first-degree-murder cross-reference to calculate O’Donnell’s Guidelines range.
  • The Eighth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that existing Eighth Circuit precedent controls challenges like O’Donnell’s to a felon-in-possession indictment. It also leaves intact the use of an attempted-first-degree-murder cross-reference in his sentencing calculation, although the abbreviated opinion supplies no further explanation of the supporting facts or analysis.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top