United States v. Norris Culver, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2020
• Docket: 20-1189
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: August 4, 2020 Filed: August 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________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-