US v. Quenton Damon Holman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00203-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999424897].. [13-4861]

Appeal: 13-4861

Doc: 31

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4861

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUENTON DAMON HOLMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00203-JAB-1)

Submitted:

July 25, 2014

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 28, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William J. Stevens, Bridgman, Michigan, for Appellant.
Ripley
Rand, United States Attorney, Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4861

Doc: 31

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Quenton Damon Holman pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute forty-three
grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount
of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

Holman appeals the ninety-two-month

sentence imposed upon resentencing, arguing that the district
court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact to
support the four-level enhancement based on his possession of a
firearm in connection with another felony offense.

See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2012).
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
procedural

reasonableness,

we

consider,

among

In determining
other

factors,

whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range.

Id.

Generally,

in

reviewing

the

district

court’s

Guidelines calculations, “we review the district court’s legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
object

to

the

application

of

Because Holman failed to
the

USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

enhancement in the district court, however, we review his claim
2

Appeal: 13-4861

Doc: 31

Filed: 08/28/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

for plain error.

United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 509

(4th

cert.

Cir.

2013),

Henderson

v.

United

denied,

States,

(explaining plain error).
Pursuant
sentencing

court

to

133

S.

S.

Ct.

Ct.

R.

accept

Crim.

(“PSR”),

objects
in

the

to

1121,

any

P.

(2014);
1126

see

(2013)

a

absence

finding
of

in

an

32(i)(3)(A),

undisputed

presentence report as a finding of fact.”
defendant

1326

We find no such error.

Fed.

“may

134

portion

of

the
the

Moreover, even if a

the

presentence

affirmative

showing

report

that

the

information is not accurate, “the court is free to adopt the
findings of the presentence report without more specific inquiry
or explanation.”

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th

Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Given

Holman’s

related

failure

failure

to

to

object

to

affirmatively

the
show

enhancement
that

the

and
PSR

his
was

inaccurate, we conclude that there is no error, let alone plain
error, in the district court’s reliance on the PSR and failure
to make specific findings of fact.
Moreover, to the extent Holman argues that the facts
of his case did not justify the district court’s application of
the USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, we disagree.
factual

basis

—

on

which

the

probation

officer

The written
relied

in

describing the offense conduct in the PSR and to which Holman

3

Appeal: 13-4861

did

Doc: 31

not

Filed: 08/28/2014

object

—

was

more

Pg: 4 of 4

than

sufficient

to

support

the

enhancement.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4