United States of America v. Christopher William Weigert

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1645
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher William Weigert
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: January 16, 2026
Filed: April 30, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Weigert appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
revoking his supervised release. Weigert contends that (1) the district court clearly
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
erred in finding that he violated the terms of his supervised release and (2) his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
On March 5, 2025, the United States Probation Office filed a second amended
petition to revoke Weigert’s supervised release, citing various violations of release
conditions, including failure to participate in substance abuse testing on seventeen
occasions, use of a controlled substance, use of alcohol, a new law infraction, and
failure to follow his probation officer’s instructions. At the revocation hearing,
Weigert admitted to failing to participate in substance abuse testing but contested
the other alleged violations. Then, over his objection, the district court found that
Weigert committed each of the alleged violations. It calculated an advisory
guidelines range of 4 to 10 months and imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day
imprisonment, followed by 1 year and 364 days of supervised release. On appeal,
Weigert argues that the district court clearly erred in finding he had committed the
contested violations and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We first address Weigert’s argument that the district court clearly erred in
finding he committed the contested violations of his supervised release. See United
States v. Cotton, 861 F.3d 1275, 1277 (8th Cir. 2017) (“Clear error exists where,
viewing the record as a whole, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.”). The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Weigert committed all the alleged violations of his supervision. Ample evidence
supports the district court’s factual findings. First, the district court relied on
Weigert testing positive for methamphetamine and his history of methamphetamine
abuse, along with the circumstantial evidence of Weigert’s romantic relationship
deteriorating and a pattern of missing several drug tests. The district court thus found
“without any doubt at all” that Weigert had used a controlled substance while on
supervised release. Second, the district court relied on Weigert’s romantic partner’s
testimony that Weigert had drank beer and poured a beer on her to find that Weigert
had both used alcohol and committed a new law violation. On appeal, Weigert
appears to argue that the district court erred in assessing the credibility of his
romantic partner. “Witness credibility is quintessentially a judgment call and

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
virtually unassailable on appeal,” United States v. Bolden, 596 F.3d 976, 982 (8th
Cir. 2010), and we cannot say that crediting Weigert’s romantic partner’s testimony
was clear error. Finally, the district court found, based on the probation officer’s
testimony, that Weigert “just flatly refus[ed]” to follow his probation officer’s
instructions. Even Weigert’s counsel conceded that he “probably should have . . .
admitted” this point. Accordingly, we detect no clear error in the district court
findings concerning Weigert’s violations of his release conditions.
We next address whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We
review the substantive reasonableness of his sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011).
“A sentencing court abuses its discretion when it 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. Leonard, 785 F.3d
303, 306-07 (8th Cir. 2015). We “must give due deference to the district court’s
decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”
United States v. White, 863 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 2017).
Weigert appears to argue that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
because he “performed well” at the beginning of his supervised release. Even so,
the district court did not abuse its discretion because it explicitly stated that it had
considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and explained its upward variance by pointing
to Weigert’s refusal to take responsibility for his actions as well as his drug use and
violent actions while on supervised release. See Growden, 663 F.3d at 984-85 (“The
district court gave appropriate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
sufficiently explained its reasoning for the variance, and imposed a sentence within
the statutory limits.”). On appeal, Weigert gestures towards his initial lack of
violations on supervised release, but the district court already took this fact into
account when it declined to sentence him to the statutory maximum. This is not the
“unusual case” when we will reverse a district court sentence as substantively

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --