US v. Kaliff Culbertson, No. 14-4293 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4293 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KALIFF CULBERTSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kaliff Lamar Culbertson appeals the 200-month sentence imposed by robbery the by district force after violence, or court 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 prejudiced the defense.” 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 and for appeal decline assistance judgment. Anders, of This to the 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
