United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3104

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Vernon Dean Boney

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________ 

Submitted: March 13, 2023

Filed: April 25, 2023

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Vernon Boney violated the terms of his supervised release, the district 

court1 imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to be 

1

The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota.
-2- 

followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Boney contends his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

In 2015, Boney was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced to a 

41-month imprisonment term to be followed by 20 years of supervised release. After 

Boney’s release from custody, he violated his release terms. He was twice placed in 

a residential reentry center. After additional violations, Boney’s release was revoked 

and the court sentenced him to serve six months in custody followed by 10 years of 

supervised release.

Boney continued to have difficulties with supervision following his release 

from custody. Throughout 2022, he had a number of violations, including continued 

methamphetamine use, failure to participate in substance abuse testing, failure to 

attend an in-home meeting with his probation officer, and termination from a sex

offender treatment program for failure to participate. On August 11, 2022, the 

supervising probation officer sought revocation of Boney’s supervised release.

At the revocation hearing giving rise to this appeal, Boney admitted the 

violations, and the court found an applicable revocation Guidelines range of three to 

nine months. Defense counsel requested that Boney be placed at a residential reentry 

center or alternatively receive a term of imprisonment with no supervision to follow. 

The government sought an upward variance, seeking a 16-month sentence, arguing 

that Boney posed a risk to the public and deterrence was necessary to encourage 

Boney to comply with his supervised release conditions. After considering Boney’s

addiction problems, his need for sex offender treatment, his failure to meet 

requirements while on supervised release, the seriousness of the original offense, 

and the risk that Boney posed to the public, the district court imposed a 12-month 

sentence followed by five years of supervised release.
-3- 

We review Boney’s substantive reasonableness challenge to his revocation 

sentence for an abuse of discretion.2

 See United States v. Cain, 976 F.3d 778, 779-

80 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citations omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs 

“if the district court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received 

significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or 

considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in 

weighing those factors.” United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631, 636 (8th Cir. 2021) 

(per curiam) (citation omitted).

Here, the district court considered the seriousness of Boney’s offense, his 

history of failing to comply with supervision conditions, the risk he posed to the 

public, his need for substance abuse and sex offender treatment, and the advisory 

Guidelines range. While Boney claims the district court inadequately analyzed the 

sentencing factors, a district court is not required to exhaustively address each issue 

raised. This is especially true when, as here, the court gave a detailed and reasoned 

basis for its sentence. See United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 

2009) (citation omitted). The record does not support Boney’s contention that the 

district court failed to adequately consider a further halfway house placement. The 

district court could reasonably find that a period of incarceration was more 

appropriate given Boney’s lack of success on supervision. See United States v. 

Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (“The district court 

may give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more to other factors 

but that alone does not justify reversal.”). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

2

Boney has submitted for filing a pro se supplemental brief. Typically, the 

Court does not address arguments in pro se filings when the defendant is represented 

by counsel. United States v. Gonzalez, 781 F.3d 422, 433 n.3 (8th Cir. 2015). 

Because Boney is represented by counsel, we deny his request to file a supplemental 

brief.