United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 12, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-21182
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRYAN E. CULWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CR-31-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
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 engaging in commercial paper/check cashing transactions
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-21182
-2-
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 (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.