UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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.
4

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