FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10617806
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Cundiff

No. 10617806 · Decided June 26, 2025
No. 10617806 · Ninth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 26, 2025
Citation
No. 10617806
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4514 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:23-cr-00024-FMTG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTIAN T. CUNDIFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Christian T. Cundiff appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 8-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291, and we affirm. Cundiff first contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his pre-indictment rehabilitation. The record belies this claim. The court heard extensive argument on Cundiff’s rehabilitative efforts and acknowledged his “good record,” which it believed supported a downward variance from the Guidelines range. That the court declined to impose the probationary sentence Cundiff requested does not reflect that it failed to consider his arguments. Cundiff next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his pre-indictment “transformation into a law-abiding citizen.” The district court did not abuse its discretion, however, in concluding that an 8-month sentence was warranted. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 24-4514
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Cundiff in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 26, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10617806 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →