# United States Court of A ppe als Fo r the Eighth Circuit

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ No. 1 7-1130

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Unit ed Sta te s of Am eri ca
lll lll lll lll lll lll lll Pla int iff

- Appe lle e

v.

W ill ard Paul Farre ll, III

lll lll lll lll lll lll lll De

fe ndan t - Ap

pe lla nt

____ ____ ____ Appe al from

Uni te d Sta te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Dis tric t of Sou th D ak ota - Abe rdee n

____ ____ ____ Subm itt ed : M arc h 12 , 201 8 File d: A pril 26, 2 018 [Unpub lis he d]

____ ____ ____ Be fore GR

UENDER , B EAM , a

nd KE LLY, C irc uit

Jud ge s.

____ ____ ____ PER C URIAM

.

Th is ca se co nc erns the dis tric t co urt’ s se co nd revo ca tio n of W ill ard Farrel l’s 1
supe rvise d rel ea se

. In 2013 , Farrel l ple ad ed gui lty to dom es tic as sa ult by an ha

bit ua l

The Hono rabl e Ch arl es B. Kornman n, U nit ed Sta te s Dist ric t Judg e for the 1 Dist ric t of Sou th D ak ota

.offend er, se e 18 U.S.C

. § 117, an d wa s se nte nc ed to 33 m ont hs’ im priso nm en t an d 36

m ont hs’ supe rvise d rel ea se

. The dis tric t co urt first revo ke d Farrel l’ s supe rvise d rel ea se in 2015 an d se ntence d him to 3 m ont hs’ im priso nm en t an d 24 m ont hs’ supe rvise d rel ea se

. In 2016 , whil e se rving his se co nd te rm of supe rvise d rel ea se , Farrel l ad m itt ed to two Grad e C vio la tio ns: (1) rem ovi ng his drug-te sti ng pa tc h wit hout ap prova l an d (2) ab sc ondi ng f rom his res ide nti al ree ntry ce nte r. The se vio la tio ns res ult ed in a se nte nc ing gui de lin es rang e of 3-9 m ont hs’ im priso nm en t. The dis tric t co urt se nten ced him to 24 m ont hs’ im priso nm en t an d 9 m ont hs’ supe rvise d rel ea se , an d Farrel l argu es tha t the 24-m ont h te rm of im

priso nm en t is subs ta nti ve ly unre as ona

ble

.

W e revi ew his revo ca tio n se nte nc e “ unde r the sa m e de fere nti al ab use -of-disc ret ion sta

nda rd tha t ap pli es to ini tia l se nte nc ing proc ee din gs. ” Se e Unit ed St at es v. Young , 640 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Ci r. 2011 ) (per cu ria m ) (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed ). Farrel l argu es th at the dis tric t co urt ab use d its dis cre tio n by ins uffic ie ntl y co nsi de ring m iti ga tin g fac tors suc h as his drug ad dic tio n, his supp ort sy ste m , an d his acce pt ance of res pons ibi lit y an d rem orse

. He al so argu es tha t the dis tric t co urt pla ce d undu e em pha sis on fac tors suc h as his “ m ino r” non-violat ion misc on duc t, his unde rly ing co nvi ct ion an d prior revo ca tio n, an d the inc onve nie nc e
ca use d by hi s ab sc on din g from his ree ntry ce nte r. This de fic ie nt we igh ing of the

se nte nc ing fac tors, ac co rding to Farrel l, res ult ed in a subs ta nti ve ly unre as ona

ble

se nte nc e.

Ye t “ it wil l be the unus ua l case whe n we reve rse a dis tric t co urt

se nte nc e—

whe the r wit

hin , ab ove , or be low the ap pli ca ble Guid el ine s rang e—a s subs ta nti ve ly unre as ona

ble ,” Unit ed

Sta te s v . Fe em ste r , 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th C ir. 2009 ) (en ba

nc ), an d thi s is not suc h a ca se

. Be fore im posi ng the se nte nc e, the dis tric t

co urt surve y ed Farrel l’ s m an y ins ta nc es of m isc ondu ct an d co nc lud ed tha t he “ ha s

m ad e virtu al ly

no a tte m pts to co m

ply ” wit h th e dis tric t c ourt’ s pri or orde rs. It n ote d the le nie nc y of Farr el l’s pr ior se nte nc es an d his repe at ed vio la tio ns of supe rvise d

-2-rel ea se

. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Abric a-Sanc he

z , 808 F.3d 330, 335 (8th Ci r. 2015 ) (con sid eri ng prior le ni en cy in im posi ng a se nte nc e)

. The dis tric t co urt al so spe ci fic al ly ad dres se d Farrel l’ s supp ort sy ste m , sta tin g: “ I rec ogni ze tha t he ha s a lot of fam ily an d frien d supp ort, whic h is ce rta inl y good

. . . . B ut h e is t

he one tha

t I’m de al in g w ith, an d tha t U.S. Probat ion ha s at te m pte d to de al wit

h, wit h no suc ce ss. ” Noth ing sugg es ts tha t the dis tric t co urt fai le d to co nsi de r Farrel l’ s oth er purport ed

m iti ga tin g fac tors. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Jo hnso n , 619 F.3d 910 , 92 2 (8th Ci r. 2010 ) (noti ng tha t we ca

n “ pres um e tha t the di strict co urt co nsi de red an d rej ec te d”

se nte nc ing argu m en ts m ad e by de fend an t). Tha t Farrel l dis ag ree s wit h the dis tric t

co urt’ s we igh ing of th e fac tors doe s no t sh ow a n a buse of di sc ret ion

.

Be ca use Farrel l ha s offere d no pe rsua siv e ba sis for findi ng an ab use of dis cre tio n, we a ffirm

.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __

-3-