UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court after he pled guilty to bank
robbery by force or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2113(a), 2113(d), 2 (2012), and possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2012). Culbertson’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether trial counsel was ineffective. Culbertson
has filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that the
district court erred by applying the sentencing enhancement for
brandishing a firearm in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (2013). We affirm.
We do not address ineffective assistance claims on
direct appeal unless the attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears on the face of the record. United States v. Benton, 523
F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). 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 with Anders, we have reviewed
Culbertson’s pro se claims and the entire record for any
meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none.
Accordingly, we decline to review Culbertson’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the district
court’s judgment. This Court requires that counsel 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4