United States v. Christopher Funchess
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.
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Submitted: April 11, 2023 Filed: May 15, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Christopher Funchess, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-christopher-funchess-ca8-2023.