FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 24 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30167
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
6:20-cr-00002-SEH-1
v.
CASEY RAY CULP, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Casey Ray Culp challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Despite the appeal waiver contained in Culp’s plea agreement, we have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to determine whether his sentence violated the Constitution. United States v.
Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2016). Because it did not, we dismiss.
Culp is a 42-year-old resident of Montana. On July 4, 2019, while drunk
and high on marijuana, Culp attempted to enter a residence in Dundee, Iowa.
During a pat down conducted in connection with Culp’s ensuing arrest, the county
sheriff’s deputies discovered a .25-caliber pistol in his shorts. After the case was
transferred to the District of Montana pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 20, Culp pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In the plea agreement, Culp knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal his sentence, unless that sentence was “constitutionally
defective.”
Culp had previously been convicted of a felony punishable by a term of
imprisonment of more than one year. Given his criminal history and the facts to
which he stipulated, the Sentencing Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. Culp
submitted nine letters from his family, friends, and employer. These letters
explained that Culp had reconnected with his family, had secured consistent
employment, had spent one year sober, and had become a productive member of
society. Some of these witnesses testified. Culp took full responsibility for his
crime. The district judge imposed a 75-month sentence.
2
1. Culp’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. In non-capital
cases, the Eighth Amendment “forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly
disproportionate to the crime.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 60 (2010)
(quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). A sentence within statutory
limits will generally not violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v.
Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2001). Though a different judge might
have given more weight to the letters and the testimony attesting to Culp’s
rehabilitation, the 75-month sentence was within the Guidelines range and the
limits imposed by the Constitution.
2. Nor was there any violation of Culp’s Fifth Amendment right to due
process. The judge evaluated the evidence, including the presentations from
Culp’s family and friends, and made an individualized assessment as our precedent
requires. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990–93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
Because there was no constitutional defect, the appeal waiver applies.
DISMISSED.
3