United States v. Christopher Funchess

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 15, 2023
Docket22-3563
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Christopher Funchess (United States v. Christopher Funchess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Christopher Funchess, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3563 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Christopher Funchess, also known as C-Murder

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: April 11, 2023 Filed: May 15, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After repeatedly violating the conditions of supervised release, Christopher Funchess received a seven-month prison sentence. Although he questions the seriousness of the violations, we affirm. We conclude that the district court 1 did not abuse its discretion when it sent Funchess back to prison. See United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion). For one thing, he repeatedly used marijuana, an illegal drug under federal law, even though he was required to “refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” (Emphasis added); see 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). He is not entitled to a break just because the illegal drug happened to be marijuana. See United States v. Schostag, 895 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that the “use of marijuana—even for medical purposes—contravenes federal law”). For another, he tried to cover up his drug use by “diluting” his test samples. A “pervasive unwillingness” to follow drug-testing conditions is serious, all the more so for someone like Funchess with a history of drug dealing. Melton, 666 F.3d at 516; see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160–61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming a revocation sentence after a defendant missed drug-testing appointments).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. _____________________________

1 The Honorable Linda J. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes
914 F.2d 159 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Nathan Melton
666 F.3d 513 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. John Edward Schostag
895 F.3d 1025 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Christopher Funchess, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-christopher-funchess-ca8-2023.