United States v. Norris Culver, Jr., No. 20-1189 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1189 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Norris Wade Culver, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: August 4, 2020 Filed: August 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Norris Culver, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, and the district court1 imposed a sentence within the advisory sentencing guideline range. His 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Culver’s sentence. Culver has filed a pro se brief disputing his sentence and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory range. There is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). As to the claims in Culver’s pro se brief, we find no merit to his challenge to the sentence, and we decline to review any ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
