United States v. Culwell

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Culwell

102 F. App'x 426

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2004

Docket03-21182

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 F. App'x 426 (United States v. Culwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Culwell, 102 F. App'x 426 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Bryan E. Culwell appeals the district court’s sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. Culwell pleaded guilty in 1995 to four counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and he was sentenced to concurrent 42-month terms of imprisonment, to be followed by concurrent five-year terms of supervised release. The district court found that Culwell violated the condition of supervised release prohibiting him from *427 engaging in commercial paper/cheek cashing transactions that exceeded $200, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling 72 months.

For the first time on appeal, Culwell argues that the two-year delay between his supervised release violations and the probation officer’s filing of the petition to revoke violated Culwell’s rights to due process. Culwell further argues, also for the first time, that his total 72-month sentence was plainly unreasonable. Both parties agree that Culwell’s arguments are subject to plain error review.

Under the plain error standard, this court may correct a forfeited error only when the appellant establishes 1) there is an error, 2) that is clear or obvious, and 3) that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc)(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that Culwell fails to demonstrate plain error with respect to his arguments. See United States v. Tyler, 605 F.2d 851, 853 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Bryan E. Culwell appeals the district court’s sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. Culwell pleaded guilty in 1995 to four counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and he was sentenced to concurrent 42-month terms of imprisonment, to be followed by concurrent five-year terms of supervised release. The district court found that Culwell violated the condition of supervised release prohibiting him from *427 engaging in commercial paper/cheek cashing transactions that exceeded $200, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling 72 months.

For the first time on appeal, Culwell argues that the two-year delay between his supervised release violations and the probation officer’s filing of the petition to revoke violated Culwell’s rights to due process. Culwell further argues, also for the first time, that his total 72-month sentence was plainly unreasonable. Both parties agree that Culwell’s arguments are subject to plain error review.

Under the plain error standard, this court may correct a forfeited error only when the appellant establishes 1) there is an error, 2) that is clear or obvious, and 3) that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc)(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that Culwell fails to demonstrate plain error with respect to his arguments. See United States v. Tyler, 605 F.2d 851, 853 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 F. App'x 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-culwell-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack