US v. Samuel Holloman
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00246-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court [1000020486].. [16-4144]
Appeal: 16-4144
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL EUGENE HOLLOMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00246-WO-1)
Submitted:
January 18, 2017
Decided:
February 9, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4144
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Eugene Holloman appeals his conviction and sentence
for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture containing
100
grams
or
more
of
heroin,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), and being a felon in possession
of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2012).
Holloman
pleaded
guilty
through
a
written
plea
agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 168 months’
imprisonment.
On
appeal,
Holloman’s
counsel
filed
a
brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that
he
found
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal
because
of
Holloman’s waiver of his right to appeal, but questioning three
aspects
of
the
proceeding
below.
Holloman
did
not
file
a
supplemental pro se brief after receiving notice of his right to
do so, and the Government elected not to respond to the Anders
brief.
Although Holloman’s plea agreement contained an appellate
waiver, the Government has not sought to enforce it in this
case.
Thus, we review the record as required by Anders.
See
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007)
(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a
responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do
nothing,
allowing
this
court
to
review.”).
2
perform
the
required
Anders
Appeal: 16-4144
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 3 of 4
In the Anders brief, counsel, while expressing his belief
that the appeal waiver bars the appeal, questions the district
court’s denial of Holloman’s motion to suppress, calculation of
the drug quantity for sentencing, and enhancement of Holloman’s
sentence for maintaining a premises to manufacture or distribute
a controlled substance.
Holloman waived any appeal based on his
motion to suppress because he did not enter a conditional plea
preserving the right to appeal that issue.
See United States v.
Bowles, 602 F.3d 581, 582 (4th Cir. 2010).
Counsel’s arguments against Holloman’s sentence also fail.
The
preponderance
of
the
evidence
shows
that
Holloman
“was
responsible for at least the drug quantity attributed to him.”
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004).
In
particular, the district court credibly linked seized currency
to
the
sale
of
heroin
and
therefore
properly
converted
the
currency into heroin weight when calculating the drug quantity.
See United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585, 592 (4th Cir. 1998).
For
the
premises
enhancement,
we
review
the
district
court’s decision for plain error because Holloman did not object
to
the
enhancement
Strieper,
Holloman
666
F.3d
inside
the
at
288,
sentencing.
295
premises
(4th
See
Cir.
without
United
2012).
the
States
Police
owner,
but
v.
found
with
a
person who appeared to receive orders from Holloman regarding
the
drugs
and
paraphernalia
inside
3
the
home.
Because
those
Appeal: 16-4144
Doc: 38
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 4 of 4
facts indicate Holloman controlled the illicit activities at the
premises, the district court did not plainly err when it applied
the premises enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015).
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Holloman, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Holloman requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Holloman.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?