US v. Larry Junior Holme

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00160-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999180286].. [13-4027]

Appeal: 13-4027

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY JUNIOR HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00160-NCT-1)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Andrew C.
Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4027

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry

Junior

Holmes

pled

guilty

to

possession

of

ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006),
and

was

sentenced

to

a

term

of

thirty

months’

imprisonment.

Holmes appeals his sentence, contending that the district court
clearly erred in finding that he did not possess the ammunition
solely

for

lawful

sporting

purposes

Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2011).
A

defendant

seeking

a

under

U.S.

We affirm.

Guidelines

reduction

mitigating circumstance has the burden of proof.
v.

Urrego-Linares,

879

F.2d

1234,

Sentencing

1238-39

for

a

United States

(4th

Cir.

1989).

Holmes maintained at his sentencing that he had not possessed
firearms since 2009 and that all the ammunition found in his
residence in the course of two searches was old and had been
possessed solely for deer hunting.
presented

to

contradictory.

establish

that

However, the testimony he

fact,

including

his

own,

was

Moreover, the government presented evidence that

Holmes had possessed firearms which he removed from his house
just before it was searched, and that he threatened a neighbor
with a handgun after the first search.

We conclude that, based

on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that

Holmes

was

not

entitled

purpose reduction.

2

to

the

lawful

sporting

Appeal: 13-4027

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3