US v. Kaliff Culbertson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00017-RJC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999472070].. [14-4293]

Appeal: 14-4293

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KALIFF CULBERTSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00017-RJC-2)

Submitted:

October 27, 2014

Decided:

November 10, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW AND SAENGER,
P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth
Ray,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Asheville,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4293

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kaliff Lamar Culbertson appeals the 200-month sentence
imposed

by

robbery

the

by

district

force

or

court

after

violence,

in

he

pled

guilty

violation

of

to

18

bank

U.S.C.

§§ 2113(a), 2113(d), 2 (2012), and possession of a firearm and
ammunition

by

§ 922(g)(1)

a

convicted

(2012).

felon,

Culbertson’s

in

violation

counsel

has

of

18

filed

U.S.C.
a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that

he

has

found

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

questioning whether trial counsel was ineffective.
has

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental

brief

asserting

but

Culbertson
that

the

district court erred by applying the sentencing enhancement for
brandishing

U.S.

Sentencing

(“USSG”) § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (2013).

We affirm.

We

a

do

firearm

not

in

address

ineffective

Guidelines

assistance

Manual

claims

on

direct appeal unless the attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears on the face of the record.
F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Benton, 523

Instead, such claims should be

raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012),
in order to permit sufficient development of the record.

United

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

To

succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must
show that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “the deficient performance
2

Appeal: 14-4293

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2014

prejudiced the defense.”

Pg: 3 of 4

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687-88 (1984).
Culbertson asserts that trial counsel was ineffective
for the following reasons: (1) counsel was inexperienced; (2)
counsel failed to object to the enhancement for brandishing a
firearm; (3) counsel failed to object to the application of the
career offender Guideline; and (4) counsel called Culbertson to
testify during the sentencing hearing.

Applying the relevant

legal principles to Culbertson’s ineffective assistance claims
leads us to conclude that counsel’s ineffectiveness does not
appear

conclusively

on

the

face

of

the

present

record.

Accordingly, we decline to review these claims on direct appeal.
In

accordance

Culbertson’s

pro

meritorious

grounds

Accordingly,

we

ineffective
court’s

se

with

claims

assistance

judgment.

and

for

decline
of

This

Anders,
the

appeal
to

counsel
Court

entire
and

review

we

have
record

have

requires

for

found

Culbertson’s
and

reviewed
any
none.

claims

affirm

the

that

counsel

of

district
inform

Culbertson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review.

If Culbertson

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this
Court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Culbertson.
3

Appeal: 14-4293

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/10/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4