United States of America v. Stacy A. Farmer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2776
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stacy A. Farmer
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Northern
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2025
Filed: January 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2015, Stacy A. Farmer completed his prison sentence for failure to register
as a sex offender, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Since then, his supervised release has been
revoked three times, most recently for use of a controlled substance and failure to

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
reside and participate in a residential re-entry program. The district court1 calculated
a 6- to 12-month Guidelines range then varied up, sentencing him to 24 months in
prison with no further supervised release.
Farmer appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by
failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failing to adequately
explain the sentence. While its explanation was short, the district court did not
plainly err. United States v. Maxwell, 664 F.3d 240, 246 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing
for plain error when defendant did not object below). The court read the presentence
report, listened to Farmer’s statements, discussed his challenges with alcoholism and
his health, and acknowledged that Farmer had not engaged in further criminal
activity. See United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 557–58 (8th Cir. 2016) (per
curiam) (explaining that “[t]his court looks to the entire record, not just the district
court’s statements at the hearing” when determining whether the district court
committed procedural error). It also noted his criminal history and that “[t]his is his
third revocation.” That was enough. See id.; see also United States v. Holmes, 87
F.4th 910, 915 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he district court need only ‘set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” (quoting
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007))).
Farmer also argues the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the
facts of the case, particularly his commitment to sobriety. Because Farmer presented
those facts below, we “presume that the district court considered and rejected them.”
United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Farmer also asked the district court not to receive more supervised release. Giving
“due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,
justify the extent of the variance,” we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in varying up and sentencing Farmer to 24 months. United States v.
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --